HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/22/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FORT DATE: March 15, 2011 A A
STAFF: Joe Frank, Timothy Wilder
Pete Wray
Items Relating to the Implementation of Plan Fort Collins.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 036, 2011, Making Amendments to the Land Use Code Implementing
Policies of the 2010 Update of City Plan.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Name of the
"Commercial District(C)" to"General Commercial District(C-G)."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1,2011, implement Land Use Code and Zoning
Map amendments related to adoption of the update to City Plan.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Clarification of Revision to Ordinance No.036,2011,Section 3.3.12(A),2011 —1-25/S.H.392 Corridor Activity
Center Standards.
Section 3.3.12 (A) of Ordinance No. 036, 2011, is the only item that received discussion and questions by Council
during First Reading on March 1. A summary of staff responses to Council follow-up questions during First Reading
is included as Attachment 2.
In response to input and discussion from representatives of the synthetic stucco (E.I.F.S.) trade industry, staff is
recommending an amendment to Ordinance No. 036, 2011 —1-25/S.H. 392 Corridor Activity Center(CAC)Standards
relating to Section 3.3.12 (A). The original building materials standard adopted on First Reading prohibited E.I.F.S.
Staff has incorporated additional clarification in the Ordinance, identifying where other exterior building materials can
be applied, including E.I.F.S. Options include permitting other materials on the ground floor building elevations not
visible from a public street, and on any additional building elevation above ground floor level.
The proposed masonry standard applies to ground floor building elevations visible from a public street. This staff
recommendation is based primarily on aesthetics in order to create unique and distinctive commercial development
within the CAC gateway area. Staff responses to Council questions related to masonry standard rationale,comparing
exterior building materials performance between E.I.F.S. and stone or brick including R-Value, durability, energy
efficiency, cost/benefit, and green building standards are included in Attachment 2.
Staff has assembled a series of photos of both E.I.F.S. and real brick and stone project applications(see Attachment
3). In addition, staff has sample boards of these comparative materials for display prior to, and during the Hearing.
Town of Windsor Review Process
On February 3, 2011, the Windsor Planning Commission approved a recommendation to the Windsor Town Board
to adopt the Ordinance.
On February 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance on First Reading.
On March 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance as amended on Second Reading by a vote of 6-0.
March 22, 2011 -2- ITEM 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances, as amended, on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary- March 1, 2011
(w/o attachments)
2. Staff follow-up response to Council questions regarding Ordinance No. 036, 2011
3. Comparison photos of exterior building materials including E.I.F.S., brick, and stone projects
4. PowerPoint presentation
ATTACHMENT
DATE: March 1, 2011 kk AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY IM
STAFF: Joe Frank, Timothy Wilder,
Pete Wray FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Items Relating to the Implementation of Plan Fort Collins, Including Amendments to Three Subarea Plans and the
Land Use Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No,036,2011, Making Amendments to the Land Use Code Implementing Policies
of the 2010 Update of City Plan.
B. First Reading of Ordinance N 0 7, 201 Amendi g oning`/Map by Changing the Name of the
t i• \/
"Commercial District(C)" to"':General Commercial District.(C-G).
�� � \�.�� I � i �
C. Resolution 2011-023 Amend in g•the'Fossil'Creek Reservoir Area Plan,the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and
the Northwest Subarea Plan to Comport with the 2010 Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan Known as
"Plan Fort Collins".
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resolution and Ordinances implement amendments to three subarea plans and the Land Use Code related to
adoption of the update to City Plan. IT \V
l
f
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. The current proposed changes result from the recent
update to City Plan, which identifies specific amendments to the Land Use Code to be implemented concurrent with
the adoption of City Plan. The proposed changes are listed in City Plan as follows:
Land Use Code Amendments
Neighborhoods and Housing
• Amend Low Density Mixed,Use Neighborhoods(L'M-N)`requirements regarding: (1) mix of housing; (2)
density requirements; and (3) neighborhood convenien(.,e.centers,(b)uilding footprints for retail and offices).
�� n )l raller �Eliminate Infill Area and retain,flexibledensity for s projects.
Community Appearance and Design and Others
• Establish gateway standards for the 1-25/392 Interchange (as part of the interchange project).
• Change all references in the Land Use Code and the Zoning Map from Commercial to"General Commercial"
to improve clarity and match zoning map text.
These items are more fully described in Attachment 1 -List of Land Use Code Issues and Attachment 2-1-25/SH 392
Interchange Project-Corridor Activity Center- Proposed Gateway-Standards.1-7
The Resolution,providing revisions to.three subarea plans', indirectly-related{to the proposed amendments to the L-M-
N density standards. Changes are`needed)to ensure/that L-M-N density numbers in these subarea plans are
consistent with City Plan and the Lan d'Use:Gode�These changes are morel fully described in Attach ment3-Subarea
Plan Amendment Report.
March 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 29
City Council has held two work sessions regarding the amendments, the first on December 14, 2010 and the second
on February 8,2011. At these work sessions,Council asked questions and provided policy direction (See Attachment
4). A follow-up memo was provided with responses to several questions that could not be answered during the
February Work Session.
Since the February 8, 2011 Work Session, staff made one change to the Land Use Code amendments:
Amend 3.9.12 Corridor Activity Center Design Standards (Draft Ordinance page 2 and Land Use
Code Item#866). The Code revision has been changed to establish a maximum building height of
90 feet, rather than 6 1/2 stories or 90 feet. The purpose of this change is to provide a simpler and
clearer numeric building height standard.
FINANCIAL/ ECONOMIC IMPAC' ' TS1
There are no direct financial impacts`to_th�Ci y�s.a resultIof these amendments.ndments. The proposed amendments
represent a follow up implementation action with the City Plan update, and the Plan addresses the tenets of
sustainability—economic, environmental and human.'
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no direct environmental impacts as a result of these amendments. The proposed amendments represent
a follow up implementation action with the City Plan update, and the Plan addresses the tenets of sustainability—
economic, environmental and human.
F VSTAFF RECOMMENDATION I Id
Staff recommends adoption of the Oldd34 and tl Res IJution.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on Plan Fort Collins. The Board
passed two motions related to the Ordinance and Resolution which are summarized as follows:
1. Recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Concurrent Implementation Action Amendments to
the Subarea Plans with the exception of any reference to expanding the density to three(3)dwelling units per
acre in the Urban Estate (U-E)%The,motiowwas,app ved-5-0:;
2. Recommendation to the City,Councill for the adoption-of-Land Use Code amendments 855 through 867
(excluding 853 and 854, i.e.,the.proposedth�s to j he allowable'''density in the U-E Zone).The motion was
approved 5-0.
Draft minutes from the January 20, 2011, Planning and Zoning Board meeting can be found in Attachment 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public involvement consisted of the following:
• Public meetings, including a focused open house on February 16, 2011, and more general Plan Fort Collins
events on October 12, 2010yand—De`cember'13�2010.'
• Direct mail and presentations to affectedrinterest`s. !�
• Plan Fort Collins newsletter la"nnouncement. J
• Website information. \�f
• Planning and Zoning Board hearing on January 20, 2011.
March 1, 2011 -3- ITEM 29
To date, staff has received a few comments on the proposed amendments, all in favor. The recent open house on
February 16 was attended by approximately ten people and all supported the proposed changes. Announcements
for the meeting were made to the Plan Fort Collins mailing lists and other affected interests, consisting of over 1,000
people.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Project-Corridor Activity Center-Proposed Gateway Standards Overview(January
10, 2011) 6---,. �. /1
3. City Council Work Session Summaries,/December 14, 2010 and February 8, 2011
. Planning and Zoning Board rain ariva. . ry 20, 20 5
. PowerPoint Presentation
co �p
VU
copy
Copy - .
r 'Attachment 2
c!t`/r 11Collif
®# Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
ox 580
F6rt97 B21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
DATE: March 14, 2011
TO: Mayor and Members of City Cou 1
THRU: Darin Attebe City Mana e^
�'> Y g
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manage
Karen Cumbo, PDT Director a.
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Directory,-.
Steve Dush, Community Development &Neighborhood Services Director�p
FROM: Pete Wray, Senior City Planne
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner 1 f
Mike Gebo, Building Official
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2011 - Staff response to Council questions from
first reading.
1. What is the rationale for the proposed masonry standard?
Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and Town of
Windsor jointly adopted in December 2010, new land use and design standards are included in the
proposed Ordinance No. 036, 2011. The IGA identified a schedule for adopting these standards for the I-
25/392 Corridor Activity Center(CAC)by March 31, 2011.
Staff was directed by the Intergovernmental Agreement to develop new land use and design standards for
the I-25/S.H. 392 CAC in order to "raise the bar" in design quality for this important gateway for both
jurisdictions. The intent of the proposed building material standard is to provide a higher quality
architectural appearance for commercial buildings within the CAC area. The masonry standard
incorporates authentic materials that reflect texture, articulation, grout line shadow, and variation of
material color and design at the ground level. Staffs position is that other materials such as Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (E.I.F.S.) representing synthetic stucco, try to mimic masonry but do not
achieve the described level of quality.
The proposed short list of materials included in the masonry standard represents a selective process by
staff to narrow down preferred materials for ground level, front facades to enhance the overall look and
feel of new development. The proposed standard is not a major change from current regulations, but
provides an improvement over existing commercial development located along the I-25 corridor. The
Promenade Shops at Centerra and Orchard Town Center in Westminster include commercial buildings
with E.I.F.S., brick, and stone building materials as predominant building facades.
Standards allow for alternatives to be approved if an applicant demonstrates that the alternative is "equal
to or better" than the standard in meeting the purposes. Staff believes it is appropriate to set masonry as
Fort Collins
the standard, and if an alternative is equal to or better, the alternative would be eligible for the
modification provision to be applied in the development review process.
2. Why amend the masonry standard for second reading?
During the Windsor Town Board meeting held on February 14 for first reading, representatives of the
E.I.F.S. trade industry testified and expressed concerns relating to Ordinance Section 3.9.12 (A), that
requires the ground floor building materials be made of natural stone, synthetic stone, brick or
textured/split face block, and not synthetic stucco. The Windsor Town Board approved first reading of
the Ordinance and postponed second reading to March 14 to allow more time for staff to meet with the
E.I.F.S. representatives.
City and Town staff met with seven E.I.F.S. trade representatives on February 24. This group is
concerned about the proposed requirement for masonry to the exclusion of E.I.F.S. The group cited
advantages of using E.I.F.S. material over masonry; including insulation R-value rating, reduced weight,
cost, lower embodied energy, and industry progress in simulating the look of masonry.
Both Windsor and Fort Collins staff have evaluated the input provided by the local industry
representatives and the national trade association. The overall aesthetic objective of creating a gateway
unique to Northern Colorado would be diluted if all materials were allowed on all building elevations.
The very nature of establishing a baseline of design standards means that some materials would simply be
relegated to upper levels or elevations not facing a public street.
Since there is already an abundance of synthetic stucco.along the commercial corridors in the region, its
predominant use would simply contribute to the ubiquitous and prototypical appearance which detracts
from the unique identity trying to be achieved at this Interchange area. Staff s position is that the refined
list of exterior materials for first floor elevations and elevations facing a public street is supported by the
Community Appearance and Design policies of City Plan. These standards represent local values and a
desire to create a unique and distinctive southern gateway to both the City of Fort Collins and the Town of
Windsor.
The original Ordinance Section 3.9.12 (A), adopted on first reading, prohibited E.I.F.S. materials. In
response to recent feedback from E.I.F.S. representatives, staff recommends an amendment to this
Standard to allow synthetic stucco materials on rear facades of the first floor elevations, if not visible from
side and rear streets, and on all upper stories (see Ordinance 036, 2011). This proposed change will
clarify where other exterior building materials can be applied and allow more flexibility in designing new
commercial buildings within the CAC area, without compromising the original intent of the proposed
standard. On March 14 the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance as amended on second reading.
3. How does E.I.F.S. compare to masonry brick and stone materials including R-value, energy
efficiency, durability, and green building standards?
The recently adopted 2009 International Building Code (IBC) requires that materials including exterior
wall finishes,be applied on the exterior side of exterior walls for the purpose of providing a weather
resisting barrier. This barrier is designed to protect the building structural members, including framing
Staff Response to Council Questions From First Reading Page 2
March 14, 2011
Fort Collins
and sheathing materials, and conditioned interior space, from the detrimental effects of the exterior
environment.
The IBC lists materials approved to be used as an exterior wall covering including stone, brick, various
wood, vinyl, or metal sidings, traditional multi-layer cement stucco and E.I.F.S. E.I.F.S. is a nonstructural
and non load-bearing exterior wall cladding system that consists of an insulation board attached either
adhesively or mechanically, or both, to the building substrate; and an integrally reinforced base coat and a
textured protective finish coat. Typically, two inch insulation board is used which provides a continuous
covering over the exterior walls with an R-.value rating of R-10.
All new commercial buildings must also comply with the newly adopted 2009 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) which establishes minimum design and construction standards for the
effective use of energy. Prescriptive requirements of the IECC specify that the building exterior framed
walls be insulated to a minimum of R-13 and that the exterior walls be covered in a continuous layer of
insulation of either R-3.8 for wood framed walls or R-7.5 for metal framed walls. The R-value increase
for metal framed walls is due to the fact that the cold temperatures can transfer through the metal studs
more readily then through wood studs. The typical E.I.F.S. installation of two inch insulation rated at R-
10 exceeds this energy requirement.
As with any exterior wall covering, installation procedures as identified by building codes or the product
manufacturer must be followed in order to assure that the installed materials do afford protection of the
building components. Moisture which gains access to a building can lead to the degradation of the
structural components and can aid in the growth of molds and mildews.
Brick and stone veneer materials are naturally porous and can wick moisture through the material. As
such, the IBC requires a moisture barrier, such as tar paper, and a drainage plane to be installed behind the
entire veneer, intended to capture any moisture and allow it to drain out from behind the veneer.
E.I.F.S. also can form an effective barrier to moisture migration, however special attention to flashing
details must be made wherever a break in the E.I.F.S. occurs, such as at doors and windows. The E.I.F.S.
foam board is a relatively soft material protected by a base coat and a thin finish coating of concrete. Any
breaks, dents, tears, or holes in the concrete coatings which expose the foam board are to be repaired and
re-coated in order to prevent moisture migration into the building.
The upcoming green code amendments will have no impact on these basic requirements.
4. What is the cost and benefit of E.I.F.S. in comparison to brick and stone exterior building
materials?
A. E.I.F.S.
The ELF.S. System has one dominant benefit over other systems, and that is cost. Chief Estimator Johnny
Walston at The Neenan Company provided a rough evaluation of installed finish cost differential between
building systems:
E.I.F.S. $7-8/FSF (Installed finish square foot cost estimate—Provided by The Neenan Company)
Staff Response to Council Questions From First Reading Page 3
March 14, 2011
City of
t Coffins
The lower price of E.I.F.S. over a masonry product may have contributed to the popularity of this
cladding material.
The durability of E.I.F.S. is not well documented for Northern Colorado. According to the E.I.F.S.
Industry Manufacturer's Association, E.I.F.S. can have a life expectancy of 100 years if properly installed
and protected from water. Although several masonry trade representatives challenge this claim, and say
in many cases E.I.F.S. as a painted product lasts between 20-50 years, depending on proper maintenance.
There are no 100 year old E.I.F.S. buildings in Colorado, and most of the data seems to be anecdotal or
empirical. In contacting several architects and contractors in Fort Collins, the message is mixed but
generally it seems that E.I.F.S. as a system has a limited place in the construction world. For example in
speaking with Chief estimator, Johnny Walston at The Neenan Company, he indicated that E.I.F.S. is still
used but their company has moved away from the soft- coat variety and is typically only specifying hard-
coat stucco. This same comment was echoed by RB + B architects, a local architecture firm.
In Fort Collins, one known example (Baker Instrument) is 25 years old. Several other E.I.F.S. buildings
exist in Oakridge Business Park that are 15 years old.
E.I.F.S. has one very common problem in Colorado; it is very popular with a local native woodpecker, the
Northern Flicker. One soft-coat version of E.I.F.S. is quite often the target of this native species. Because
of the hollow sound which emanates when tapped, the E.I.F.S. foam tends to attract the Flicker for
nesting. Finding the surface soft and easily penetrated, the E.I.F.S. panels are often carved out for nests.
The result of creating the nest is an unsightly hole in the side of a building and a resultant reduction in
insulation value.
There is a hard-coat version of E.I.F.S. which employs a wire mesh for reinforcement and employs a
harder finish which seems to be effective in warding off potential bird attacks. The hard coat version still
employs the same effectiveness of the Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam in E.I.F.S., but has a harder
shell. This system also has added potential for durability.
B. Brick and Stone Masonry Product
Brick $18- $20/FSF (Installed finish square foot cost estimate—Provided by The Neenan Company)
Stone$35-45 /FSF (Installed finish square foot cost estimate—Provided by The Neenan Company)
The following are recognized benefits of using real masonry like brick and stone as compared to E.I.F.S.,
and in some cases, stucco identified by the Brick Industry Southwest Region.
Life cycle of Brick> 100 years (100 years is the maximum allowed)
Lifecycle of E.I.F.S. = 50 years (according to Building for Environmental & Economic Sustainability)
DESIGN/COLOR
Staff Response to Council Questions From First Reading Page 4
March 14, 2011
of
Fort Collins
The value of using brick or stone for exterior building applications is the authentic and enduring quality of
the material. A variety of surface texture, deep grout lines, endless design options, and variation of
masonry color all contribute to the intrinsic nature and amenity this product represents. While E.I.F.S.
can mimic a brick appearance, synthetic stucco can not achieve the same masonry qualities mentioned
above.
IMPACT RESISTANCE
Brick and stone are impact resistant. The impact and moisture resistance of E.I.F.S. is entirely dependent
on the thickness and quality of workmanship in applying the plaster-like coating to the surface. Shopping
carts and general pedestrian traffic can wear down, poke holes, or damage the coating and expose the
foam-like material to the elements. While many cities have prohibited the use of E.I.F.S. altogether,
others have opted to allow only HIGH IMPACT E.I.F.S.
MOISTURE RESISTANCE
Brick and stone construction systems have excellent performance with regard to moisture management,
and they do not provide a food source for mold. With E.I.F.S., if the water reaches the foam-like material,
it can remain there for months and eventually cause damage to the structural members, especially wood,
of the building. Because of the historic issues with water absorption, many cities have added language
prohibiting E.I.F.S. on any building constructed out of wood or with wood structural members or wood
sheathing.
Staff Response to Council Questions From First Reading Page 5
March 14, 2011
Attachment No. 3
I-25/SH 392 CAC Design Standards
Sample photos to compare Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (E.LF.S.)
synthetic stucco with brick or stone masonry products
1. Photos from E.I.F.S. representatives of out of state projects
2. Photos form City of Fort Collins staff of local exterior building materials
_ +l
If
: .` .IN !
&Jm
yi
i ;„ T4 tY 1 K a.l �
LP
tot
IV
44
f
At
IN
I 41 • /
It
It
IN
AL AAP
IN
to
1: .w .� �!� awl � - '•'� �� � � 6 �i.".
• , _mil 1_. ( •
y�y'q i
y"'c'l I 1
y � Y
_ 2008 /05�T1
Nk ,;I .
�1 �` :*
,a
2008 ;d05 ;-' 21
it PO
rd
I
Ram �;�
a .
vv
it
10
Oil
r ,
r.
I r }
n n t+t
1?.
' rat 'ra'� ^`�h. 1•T, .r
N T
. .. at
T 't0. • �;41111 t .
71
nP
v, , rhMl�• ,
! 1
. ,
i
.» w
AMA
Lr
mmmmmm
mmm
M
I� L. { •� :IR i 1 �,
i I • �7
JY
�F*. t ...
ff r
2 . City Staff Photos
Brick
n
11 �
Brick
LA
1
Brick
i
Brick
2
Brick
it'.El i4lmv I
��. , ir :� ! .�—�'.� Its. •' :. 4 '" R: = ' ae, �
Brick
3
Brick
pppppp�
j
Brick
lk^^'
4
Brick
r
•
•
J , t\
Brick
5
Brick
}
EIFS
J
6
EIFS
1
EIFS
i
I
7
EIFS
1
EIFS
s
EIFS
r,
r_
1�
.i-
EIFS
9
EIFS
Stone
If Igo
r �
l
♦ T
•fit .� / � - - � _
N' "qJ
f/
10
Stone
�7
V
r
Stone
11
Stone
2
7
\rz �
Stone
1 -
12
ORDINANCE NO . 0365 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OF THE 2010 UPDATE OF CITY PLAN
WHEREAS , on March 18, 1997, 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 has embarked upon an effort known as `Plan Fort Collins' to update
the Citys comprehensive plan which effort has resulted in the suggestion that certain
amendments need to be made to the Land Use Code in order to implement Plan Fort Collins ; and
WHEREAS , in connection with the Plan Fort Collins project and the implementation
thereof, 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 all references to the"Commercial District (C) zone district in the Land
Use Code are hereby changed to "General Commercial District (C-G) zone district.
Section 2 . That Section 3 . 6 . 1 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
3 .6. 1 Master Street Plan
(A) Establishment of Master Street Plan. In order to accomplish the purposes of this
Land Use Code, the location and ultimate functional classification of necessary
arterial and collector streets and other transportation facilities have been established
on a map entitled " City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, " dated February 15 ,
2011 , as amended, which map is hereby made a part of this Land Use Code by
reference . The Master Street Plan is on file with the City Clerk and the City
Engineer.
1
Section 3 . That Section 3 . 9 . 1 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
3 . 9. 1 Applicability and Purpose
(A) Applicability. The provisions contained in Sections 3 . 9 .2 through 3 . 9 . 11 shall
apply to applications for development within the boundary of the I-25 Subarea
Plan, and, to the extent that such provisions regulate Activity Centers, they shall
also apply to the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor Activity Center; and the
provisions contained in Section 3 . 9 . 12 shall apply only to the I-25/State Highway
392 Corridor Activity Center,
Section 4 . That Article 3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Division 3 . 9 . 12 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3 .9. 12 Corridor Activity Center Design Standards
(A) On any exter-ioifirst floor building elevation that is visible from a public
right-of-way, masonry materials limited to natural stone, synthetic stone,
brick, and concrete masonry units that are textured or split face, solely or
in combination, shall be applied to cover from grade to the top of the entry
feature of such elevation, or if there is no entry feature on any particular
elevation, to a height that would be equivalent to the top of the first floor.
For first floor building elevations not visible from a public right-of-way
and on all upper stories, other exterior finish materials including but not
limited to synthetic stucco (E .LF . S . ), architectural metals, clay units, terra
cotta, prefabricated brick panels or wood can be applied in whole, or in
combination with the masonry materials described above . For the
purposes of this provision, architectural metals shall mean metal panel
systems that are either coated or anodized; metal sheets with expressed
seams; metal framing systems ; or cut, stamped or cast ornamental metal
panels, but not ribbed or corrugated metal panel systems . Materials su
as synthetic stueeo �� .T c ' , """nth-i evv blo6lEStandard concrete
masonry units or tilt-up concrete with applied texturing are prohibited on
any building elevation.
(B) A roof pitch shall be required for buildings containing less than twenty
five thousand (25 ,000) square feet and having three (3 ) stories or less . In
cases where mechanical equipment must be mounted on the roof, a sloping
mansard roof shall be allowed.
(C) The maximum building height shall be ninety (90) feet.
2
(D) All freestanding signs shall be ground signs and shall be limited to a
maximum height of fourteen ( 14) feet along and perpendicular to I-25 and
twelve ( 12) feet along and perpendicular to all other streets . Such ground
signs shall be subject to all other requirements in Section 3 . 8 . 7 .
Section 5 . That Section 4 . 5 (B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3 . Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the
following uses : mixed-use dwelling units; retail; convenience
retail stores; personal and business service shops; small animal
veterinary facilities ; offices, financial services and clinics ;
community facilities ; neighborhood support/recreation facilities;
schools; child care centers ; and places of worship or assembly.
Section 6 . That Section 4 . 5 (D)( 1 )(2) and (3 ) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Density.
(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density
of four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential land, except that
residential developments (whether overall development plans or project
development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an
overall minimum average density of three (3 ) dwelling units per net
acre of residential land.
(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall
be nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land, except that
affordable housing projects (whether approved pursuant to overall
development plans or project development plans) containing ten ( 10)
acres or less may attain a maximum density, taken as a whole, of
twelve ( 12) dwellings units per gross acre of residential land.
(c) The maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development
plan shall be twelve ( 12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential
land, and the maximum density of any portion of a phase containing a
grouping of two (2) or more multi-family structures shall be twelve
( 12) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
3
(2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any
individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on
the size of the parcel . In order to promote such variety, the following
minimum standards shall be met:
(a) A minimum of three (3 ) housing types shall be required on any project
development plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such
plans that are part of a phased overall development; and a minimum of
four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project
development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more.
(b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions,
garage placement, lot sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly
and substantially varied to avoid repetitive rows of housing and
monotonous streetscapes . For example, providing distinct single-
family detached dwellings or two-family on larger lots and on corners
and providing small lot single-family dwellings on smaller lots abutting
common open spaces fronting on streets are methods that accomplish
this requirement.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this
requirement:
1 . Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages .
2 . Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded
garages.
3 . Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less
than four thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty
(40) feet or less) if there is a difference of at least two thousand
(2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot
single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for
single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages .
4. Two-family dwellings .
5 . Single-family attached dwellings .
6 . Mixed-use dwelling units .
7 . Multi-family dwellings (limited to twelve [ 12] dwelling units per
building) ;
8 . Mobile home parks .
4
(d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent
or less than five (5) percent of the total number of dwelling units .
(3) Neighborhood Centers.
(c) Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two
(2) or more of the following uses : mixed-use dwelling units ;
community facilities ; neighborhood support/recreation facilities;
schools ; child care centers ; places of worship or assembly; convenience
retail stores; retail stores, offices, financial services and clinics with
less than five thousand (5 ,000) square feet of building footprint area;
personal or business service shops ; standard or fast food restaurants
(without drive-in or drive-through facilities) ; small animal veterinary
clinics ; convenience retail stores with fuel sales that are at least three
quarter (3/4) miles from any other such use and from any gasoline
station; and artisan or photography studios or galleries . No drive-in
facilities shall be permitted. A neighborhood center shall not exceed
five (5) acres in size, excluding such portion of the neighborhood
center which is composed of a school, park, place of worship and
assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in subparagraph (e) of this
Section.
Section 7 . That Section 4 . 6(D) ( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
( 1 ) Density. Residential developments in the Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of
twelve ( 12) dwelling units per net acre of residential land except that
residential developments (whether approved pursuant to overall development
plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall
have an overall minimum average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net
acre of residential land. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to
mixed-use dwellings in multistory mixed-use buildings .
Section 8 . That Section 4 .21 (B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows :
(B) Permitted Uses.
5
( 1 ) The following uses are permitted in the C District, subject to basic
development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part
of an approved site-specific development plan:
(a) Any use authorized pursuant to a site-specific development plan that
was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning
Code in effect on March 27 , 1997 , or in compliance with this Land Use
Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat,
approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any
nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing
more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be
subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said
site- specific development plan.
(b) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone
district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property
pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on
March 27 , 1997 ; and which physically existed upon such parcel on
March 27, 1997 ; provided, however, that such existing use shall
constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
(2) The following uses are permitted in subdistricts of the C-G District, subject to
Basic Development Review (BDR), Administrative (Type 1 ) Review or
Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the
chart below :
General
Land Use I-25/SH 392 Commercial
(CAC) District
C-G
A. Residential
Extra Occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer Not permitted BDR
tenants
Shelters for victims of domestic violence Not permitted BDR
Mixed-use residential Type 1 Type 1
Multi-family mixed use Type 1 Type 1
Group homes Type l Type l
Single-family attached dwellings Not permitted Type 1
Two-family dwellings Not permitted Type 1
Extra Occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) Not permitted Type 1
tenants
B . Institutional/Civic/Public
Neighborhood Parks (as defined by Parks Policy Plan) Not permitted BDR
Parks, Recreation and other Open Lands Not permitted Type 1
Hospitals Type 2 Type 2
6
Schools-Private/Vocational Colleges Type 2 Type 2
Minor public facilities Not permitted Type 1
Places of worship or assembly Not pennitted Type 1
Transit facilities without repair or storage Not pennitted Type 1
Community Facilities Not pennitted Type 2
Major Public Facilities Not permitted Type 2
C. Commercial/Retail
Lodging Type l Type l
Retail Establishment (under 25 ,000 s . ft) Type l Type l
Large Retail Establishment (25 ,000 sq. ft. +) Type 1 Type 2
Offices and Financial Services Type 1 Type 1
Personal/Business Service Shops Type 2 Type l
Medical Centers/Clinics Type 2 Type l
Long Term Care Facilities Type 2 Type 2
Health Club Type 2 Type 1
Small Scale Recreational Events Center Type 2 Type l
Unlimited Indoor Recreation Type 2 Type 2
Entertainment Facilities/Theaters Type 2 Type 2
Standard Restaurant Type 2 Type 1
Drive Thru Restaurants Type 2 Type 2
Fast Food Restaurants Type 2 Type l
Grocery/Supermarket Type 2 Type 2
Convenience Store with Fuel Sales Type 2 Type l
Medical Marijuana Dispensary Not permitted BDR
Bed and Breakfast Establishments Not permitted Type 1
Convenience Retail Stores without Fuel Sales Not permitted Type 1
Personal and Business Service Shops Not permitted Type 1
Artisan and Photography Studios and Galleries Not pennitted Type 1
Vehicle Minor Repair, Servicing and Maintenance
Not permitted Type 1
Establishments
Limited Indoor Recreation Not permitted Type 1
Retail Stores with Vehicle Servicing Not permitted Type 1
Frozen Food Lockers Not permitted Type 1
Funeral Homes Not pennitted Type 1
Gasoline Sales Not permitted Type 1
Open-Air Farmers Market Not permitted Type 1
Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses Not permitted Type 1
Plumbing, Electrical and Carpenter Shops Not permitted Type 1
Clubs and Lodges Not pennitted Type 1
Veterinary Facilities and Small Animal Clinics Not permitted Type 1
Dog Day-Care Facilities Not permitted Type 1
Print Shops Not permitted Type 1
Food Catering or Small Food Product Preparation Not permitted Type 1
Indoor Kennels Not pennitted Type 1
Drive — In Restaurants Not permitted Type 2
Recreational Uses Not permitted Type 2
Vehicle Major Repair, Servicing and Maintenance Not permitted Type 2
7
Establishments
Vehicle and Boat Sales and Leasing Establishments with Not permitted Type 2
Outdoor Storage
Enclosed Mini-Storage Not permitted Type 2
Retail and Supply Yard Establishments with Outdoor Storage Not permitted Type 2
Parking Lots and Parking Garages Not permitted Type 2
Child Care Centers Not permitted Type 2
I-25 Activity Centers Not permitted Type 2
Day Shelters < 10,000 square feet and located within 1 ,320' of Not permitted Type 2
a Transfort Route.
D. Industrial Uses
Workshop and Small Custom Industry Not permitted Type 1
Composting Facilities Not permitted Type 2
E. Accessory — Misc.
Wireless Telecommunication Equipment (not Type 2 Type 1
freestanding monopoles)
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Not permitted Type 1
Satellite Dish Antennas Greater than 39" in diameter Not permitted Type 1
Accessory buildings BDR BDR
Accessory uses BDR BDR
Section 9 . That Section 4 . 21 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (H) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(H) Development standards for the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor Activity
Center. Development located within the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor
Activity Center (see Figure ) shall be subject to the requirements
contained in 3 . 9 . 12 .
8
125 - State HWY 392 Interchange
or Hdor ctiviry Center
acre La ud Riv
{yyyyyy
r.�
r
} r
4
Fossil Creek Reservi3rr
-n
C
qY.
BC3 1 .Dc 0 3 ,633 LL ,151n
Fiat
9
Section 10 . That Section 5 . 1 .2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
deletion of the definition"Infill Area ".
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this I st day of March,
A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 22nd day of March, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 22nd day of March, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
10
ORDINANCE NO. 037, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
"COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C)" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-G)"
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
revising the zoning map; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the foregoing,the City Council has considered revising the
zoning map by changing the name of the"Commercial District(C)"to"General Commercial District
(C-G)'; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has further determined that the proposed revision is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan and is made in order to implement the comprehensive plan date
known as "Plan Fort Collins".
NOW THEREFORE, BEIT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the name of the"Commercial District(C)"to "General Commercial District
(C-G)".
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1 st day of
March, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
r
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk