HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/14/2011 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OVERVIEW; LAND USE CODE CHANGESDATE: June 14, 2011
STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Steve Dush,
Ginny Sawyer, Ted Shepard, Megan
Bolin
Pre-taped staff presentation: available at
fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Development Review Overview; Land Use Code Changes; Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) -
Zoning Tool.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to address issues and concerns regarding the development
review process. A number of concerns relate to perceptions and roles of City Planning Staff, and
the outreach associated with the development review process. In an effort to ground the discussion,
an overview of the development process and appeals is provided. This overview is followed by a
discussion of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the proposed Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP)
zoning tool, which is in its formative stages.
The LUC discussion focuses on proposed changes to the development application processes
resulting from concerns identified by staff and citizens. The SFP discussion is both a City Plan
action item and a Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan item. The SFP tool is designed to address
the unique needs of a more compact, urban, and infill development pattern by creating a zoning tool
that is more responsive to adjacent development and to context sensitive designs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have regarding the Development Process Improvement
Strategies?
2. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed LUC changes, specifically the
three directly related to addressing neighborhood concerns?
3. What feedback does Council have regarding the general approach and methodology of the
SFP?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OVERVIEW
A Brief Recent History of Fort Collins Development Review
In response to issues and concerns raised by the development community in 2003, the City engaged
Zucker Systems, the nation’s leading consultant on development review processes, to conduct an
organizational critique of the City’s development review process. At that time, the City also adopted
June 14, 2011 Page 2
Resolution 2003-105 reaffirming that the intent of the City’s development review process is to be
policy-neutral regarding growth.
The Zucker Report provided more than 50 recommendations. Numerous changes, administrative
as well as policy and standards, continue to be implemented. Some examples of improvements
include a reduction of the level of engineering required prior to a development application being
scheduled for a public hearing; a reduction in the amount of time City staff and referral agencies
spend per cycle of review (from 5 weeks to 3 weeks for initial review); and various other procedural
changes. The changes were intended to improve efficiency while maintaining a high quality review.
How does the development review process work?
The attached Development Review Guide (DRG – Attachment 1) outlines the process for a
development application. Please note that this process does not include items such as home
additions, or minor amendments to existing approved development. It is important to understand
that the staff review and comments following a formal application is an iterative process, and
comments initially made by staff can be amended and new comments can be made upon the receipt
of additional information. For these reasons, the review process includes an interdepartmental staff
team and affected stakeholders, i.e., Poudre Fire Authority, Ditch Companies, etc. to ensure that one
City department’s comments do not conflict with other departments.
Typically, before the process outlined in the DRG occurs, applicants with more complex
development applications will meet with staff for several months regarding technical and policy
issues to assess if a proposal will work or if it will comply with the regulations. During this time
many projects are modified and only then enter the process as outlined in the DRG; some projects
may not proceed at all. This “pre-DRG” process can range from a single meeting to several
meetings and can last several months or years before an applicant is ready to submit a formal
application.
Variances and Modifications
The development review process allows an applicant to request modifications or variances.
Development standards can be changed using three methods: one type of modification and two
types of variances.
A modification to a standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) may be considered independently and in
anticipation of a subsequent Project Development Plan (PDP), or in conjunction with a PDP
application. The Code permits modifications pursuant to Division 2.8 of the LUC, provided at least
one of the required specific findings are met:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard
for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a
plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested;
or
June 14, 2011 Page 3
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of
the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the
City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the
project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install
a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided
that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
In other words, a modification can be granted if:
• The resulting development is equal to or better than the standard requires; or
• It does not negate the purpose and intent of the standard; or
• A physical condition exists that results in unusual and exceptional difficulty/hardship; or
• The standard diverged from is nominal and inconsequential.
Examples of modifications include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks or landscaping. Not all
LUC requirements are eligible for a modification such as a use or process. Appeals are made to City
Council.
There are two types of variances that may be part of a development application. The first is a
technical engineering variance request related to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS). These variances are considered at a staff level and require that an applicant provide a
Professional Engineer report/paper to address the specific request. That request and associated
materials are then considered and approved or denied by the City Engineer upon consultation with
applicable City staff. Examples of these types of variances include, but are not limited to, driveway
width/spacing, curve radii or pavement requirements. There is not a public hearing process for these
requests, nor an appeal process, unless the City Engineer denies a request. If a variance request is
denied, the denial can be appealed to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
Services. If the Director denies the request, the decision can be appealed to the City Council.
June 14, 2011 Page 4
The second type of variance request is related to the LUC but applicable only to projects that are
already approved and are considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. These variances apply only
to site specific development plans or to properties that were developed by a simple building permit
or a use-by-right under the prior Code.
The criterion that may be used to justify such a variance is similar to the modification process
outlined above with the exception of the “community benefit” criterion. These variances are
processed independently from the approval of the application in accordance with Division 2.10 of
the LUC and require the following findings to be made:
The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles
3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental
to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is
allowed subject to basic development review; and that:
(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install
a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be
varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such property, or upon
the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by
the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than
would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance
is requested; or
(3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land
Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the
neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal,
as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph finding.
In other words, a variance can be granted if:
• The resulting development is equal to or better than the standard requires; or
• A physical condition exists that results in unusual and exceptional difficulty/hardship; or
• The standard diverged from is nominal and inconsequential.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is the decision maker for a LUC variance. As with modifications,
examples may include, but are not limited to, height, setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Appeals are made to City Council.
June 14, 2011 Page 5
Variances and modifications are useful and critical tools for development within the confines of a
prescriptive code. When modifications and variances are granted it can lead to a perception that the
City is compromising its standards and allowing for sub-standard development. In most cases,
developments with modifications/variances are actually better than they would have been with strict
compliance. For example, Attachment 2 depicts a site that received a variance to a setback
requirement to allow for a greenhouse because the lot and topography only permitted sunlight on
a certain portion of the lot. Attachment 3 depicts a street that received 10 Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards (LCUASS) variances to achieve diagonal parking that allows for a design and
streetscape to create a sense of place. In Attachment 4, the “green” street represents an example that
would require numerous variances/modifications yet still provides a high quality streetscape while
allowing for stormwater capabilities and water quality through innovative design. The ability to
use modifications and variances allows for the flexibility to incorporate innovative street designs
that are context sensitive, or building arrangement that considers form for compatibility. The
growing number of infill and redevelopment projects that Fort Collins continues to see within
redevelopment areas (such as Midtown and along the Mason Corridor) will likely require
modifications and variances to achieve successful projects.
Public Outreach Process Flawed
In several projects over the last several months, strong concerns have been raised about the voice
of the neighbors. These concerns including the timing of neighborhood meetings, the role of the
staff planner, the ability of citizens to speak to elected officials on pending matters, and the format
of public hearings. In addition, the increasing focus on infill and redevelopment that the City of Fort
Collins is experiencing will require new methods for outreach and engagement.
With this in mind, it is important to try and identify metrics that would indicate flaws. In an effort
to identify such metrics, staff researched the number of appeals from 2003 through 2010. Appeals
can be an indicator of an application process that did not result in mutual agreement or
understanding. During this seven year period, there were 533 Type 1 and Type 2 hearings1 resulting
in nine appeals (1.7%). The number of appeals is not the only measure of a good public outreach
process, yet this data suggests the process is not inherently flawed. Nevertheless, there are always
opportunities for improvement.
Another useful metric is the comparison of citizen participation with the number of property owners
contacted via the public notification process. Staff analyzed forty two projects for their level of
citizen participation and compared attendance at neighborhood meetings and public hearings in
relation to the number of affected property owners notified. The data reveals the following:
• The average participation rate at neighborhood meetings is 5.5%
• The average participation rate at public hearings is 1.45%
• The vast majority of projects are non-controversial with low participation rates. A few
projects are controversial with slightly higher participation rates.
• The participation rates indicate that the notification area is sufficient. (The notification
distances were expanded in 2006.)
1A Type 1 Hearing is a public hearing requiring notice and the decision maker is a hearing officer. A Type 2
Hearing is a public hearing requiring notice and the decision maker is the Planning and Zoning Board. The
LUC specifies which type of hearing is required for each type of application (Sec. 2.2.1).
June 14, 2011 Page 6
In an effort to better understand the process from the neighbors’ perspective, staff has met with
neighborhoods that have been recently engaged in development applications. Many of the
suggestions from these meetings and other citizen input resulted in the proposed Code changes
outlined in Section II of this agenda item summary. Some of the other suggestions received have
legal, procedural and management considerations that are outlined and analyzed below:
1. Using an applicant’s past performance as an evaluative criteria for a land use
application.
Some suggestions of past performance include financial ability; applicant’s criminal history and
personal character; complaints from various sources and contractual relationships with land owners.
Staff has considered past performance criteria from a procedural perspective and identified the
following concerns:
1. What are the criteria upon which past performance is evaluated?
2. Who determines the criteria?
3. How is the evidence evaluated?
4. Are appeals to information allowed?
5. If appeals are allowed, how is this administered?
6. Who evaluates the evidence to ensure it is true and accurate?
7. What sources may the information come from?
8. When is past performance determined?
9. What if the applicant does not have any past performance?
10. Does a Past Performance Review Board need to be created?
In addition to the above concerns, the evaluation of a land use application should and must be
evaluated on the merits of the application, and its compliance with the Land Use Code, not the
applicant. Additionally, there is no guarantee that an applicant who meets the past performance test
wouldn’t sell the property to another developer who may not meet the test.
For these reasons, staff does not support using a test of an applicant’s past performance as a criterion
for approving a land use application.
2. Creating an Ombudsman position for neighbors.
Concerns that staff’s role in the Development Review process may impede the effectiveness of the
public input process resulted in the suggestion for an Ombudsman to represent neighbors’ concerns
and interests. Council and staff heard statements from citizens that suggest staff is “in the pocket
of developers”; that staff is working for the developer and not the neighbors; and that the
neighborhood is in an unfair fight with both a development application and with staff. These
comments and perceptions are troubling because it creates an adversarial atmosphere and portrays
staff as being on the applicant’s side. These perceptions can foster an adversarial atmosphere,
hinder productive dialogue, and genuine problem solving in the development review process. Staff
has given these comments a great deal of thought to better understand their origin and identify how
these misperceptions can be addressed.
June 14, 2011 Page 7
Staff researched the ombudsman concept and found that various communities approach this role in
different ways. Some communities use an ombudsman to assist an applicant through a development
process while others use an ombudsman to solve problems. Eugene, Oregon uses its neighborhood
services division to inform neighborhoods about proposed changes to their areas and help them
understand planning and development processes. The research underscores the need for a local
approach such as the Oregon example. Staff is proposing a variety of action steps entitled
Development Process Improvement Strategies. (see below - page 8)
• Change the Public Hearing Process
Staff heard concerns that the public hearing process outlined in Section 2.2.7 of the LUC is unfair.
The concerns are as follows:
• the ability of the decision maker to exclude testimony deemed irrelevant, immaterial, or
unduly repetitious;
• the ability of the applicant to present any relevant information the applicant deems
appropriate;
• the public testimony is limited to relevant items;
• the ability for the applicant to respond to the testimony; and
• the inability for additional public testimony to respond to the applicant’s response to their
testimony – (effectively “who gets the last word”.)
Some of these concerns are related to the past performance issue analyzed above in section 1. There
will likely always be debate as to what is and what is not relevant. The decision maker is
responsible for choosing to either allow or not allow testimony they deem relevant to be submitted,
as outlined in Section 2.2.7 (B)(2) of the LUC.
With respect to the ability to respond to a prior response, the LUC could be amended to allow for
multiple responses. Any change would have to address how many responses are allowed and which
party speaks last.
3. Appeals Process
Appeals of any final decision under the LUC shall be in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 of the LUC.
This section of the Code outlines who can appeal, when and how. The item is scheduled and the
appeal is “on the record” meaning only those items and evidence received/reviewed by the original
decision maker may be presented to the City Council. Exceptions are outlined in section 2-57.
Some citizens expressed a desire to modify this process, specifically the “no new information”
criteria so that the Council would hold a new hearing and receive new evidence. This topic is the
next item on this Agenda.
June 14, 2011 Page 8
Development Process Improvement Strategies:
• Host a Development Review Outreach (DRO) meeting with staff and the neighborhood.
This meeting would come before the required neighborhood meeting with the purpose of
establishing a relationship between the neighborhood and staff; identifying points of contact for
communication and information; allowing staff to explain the development review process along
with tips and techniques for effective communication and dialogue; and explaining the various roles
of staff and the decision maker; etc. This approach will help explain the technical aspects of the
process and will begin the formation of a relationship between the staff and the neighborhood that
is issue oriented and allows for the focus to be on issues.
The DRO would target the same notification area that would be produced from the Neighborhood
Meeting. This meeting would be facilitated by Neighborhood Services and the Project Planner and
would be designed to inform neighbors about proposed development while helping them understand
the development process, providing tips for organization, and outlining the role of the various parties
involved in the process. This process would help ameliorate the perception that staff is on the side
of the developer and help foster effective, informed, and civil communications.
• Modify the Land Use Code (Section II of this AIS):
a. Establish a “Cooling Off Period” for denied applications;
b. Require a minimum waiting period of five days from neighborhood meeting until a
formal application submittal;
c. Prohibit the same type of applications on the same parcel or portion thereof from
being processed concurrently.
• Develop educational materials such as handouts/packets for neighborhoods outlining
the process.
• Continue to enhance and update the Development Review flow chart website;
• Develop post-process and post-development feedback tools
• Develop new zoning tools that address infill development that is sustainable, flexible
and predictable. (Section III of this AIS)
II. LAND USE CODE CHANGES
As a part of the ongoing efforts to improve the Land Use Code, staff proposes several changes.
Three of the proposed changes specifically address concerns discovered in part through discussions
with neighbors as well as anticipated concerns associated with more urban/infill development.
These amendments include:
• Item 877 – Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) O.D.P. Standards and 2.4.2(H)(1) – P.D.P. Standards – to
address the potential of having overlapping concurrent submittals.
June 14, 2011 Page 9
• Item 880 - Amend 2.2 – Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial
and a re-submittal.
• Item 883 – Amend 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings – to establish a minimum of five
calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider
or incorporate citizen input into the plan.
The balances of the proposed LUC revisions address a wide variety of issues. A full description of
each item is provided in Attachment 5.
III. SUSTAINABLE FLEXIBLE PREDICTABLE (SFP) ZONING TOOL
A more flexible zoning tool is necessary to accommodate the changing nature of community
development. Development applications are trending towards more infill and less greenfield
development. The Sustainable Flexible and Predictable (SFP) zoning tool was initially suggested
by City Council and has subsequently become a City Plan action item. This new zoning tool is also
a work plan item for the Planning and Zoning Board.
Problem Statement
The prescriptive nature of the existing Land Use Code (LUC) routinely hinders alternative
approaches to creating high quality infill/redevelopment projects. As the City of Fort Collins
matures in its development pattern and shifts from “greenfield” to more infill/redevelopment, new,
unique, and more frequent challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility.
Background
Before the City adopted the LUC in 1997, development was controlled by the Land Development
Guidance System (LDGS). The LDGS was a performance-based system that used points to evaluate
and negotiate development proposals. Highly regarded for its flexibility, the LDGS was
nevertheless criticized for its lack of predictability. LDGS projects were appealed to City Council
at a rate that necessitated a re-evaluation of the development process. The more prescriptive yet
predictable LUC process was the result.
The shift from flexible to prescriptive makes sense from the perspective of “greenfield”
development, and the LUC produced successful, quality projects. However, the city’s supply of
vacant land continues to diminish, causing development to be driven inward. Infill sites are
inherently more complex than “greenfield” because lots are often small or irregularly shaped, and
infill must respond to surrounding development and work within an existing infrastructure system.
Such constraints make it difficult, if not impossible at times, to adhere to certain LUC standards.
In these cases, the only option is to request a modification or variance of standards. This process
may serve the purpose, but is not necessarily the most efficient method of processing a development
application.
The goal of the Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) zoning tool is to incorporate elements
related to performance-based standards with the LUC (predictable process) in order to more
effectively address the needs of infill sites and produce sustainable, high-quality development.
June 14, 2011 Page 10
Policy Foundation
The need for an alternative, flexible zoning tool has been identified by multiple sources, including:
• Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) 2011 work program
P&Z has discussed the need for a flexible zoning tool for quite some time. The Board
believes the tool will be essential in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to develop in a high
quality fashion, while also addressing the various issues and interests related to infill
development.
• City Plan update, 2011
Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce barriers to infill development and redevelopment: Develop new
policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers
to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to
existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill
development and redevelopment.
• Midtown Redevelopment Study, 2010
Implementation Action A5: Evaluate and revise the existing zoning to promote and
implement elements of the Midtown Study. Prepare design guidelines that reward quality
development.
In response to this identified need, a staff team was assembled early this year to research and
develop the tool. The Planning and Zoning Board has received monthly updates on the project, and
a final product is expected by August.
What is the Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Zoning Tool?
The SFP will be a new section within the Land Use Code that will provide an alternative to
conventional land development, and permit a creative approach that takes the whole site and context
of surrounding development into consideration. It will allow for flexibility in design, placement of
buildings, use of open space, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, etc., to best utilize the potentials
of a site.
The SFP is intended to be an overlay zoning district and may be used instead of the underlying
zoning requirements for eligible projects. This tool will be most appropriate when it may be
necessary to deviate from zoning requirements due to site constraints such as lot shape, size,
topography, etc. The flexibility is necessary in such cases to address special conditions that may
otherwise prohibit cohesive and desirable development on the site. The following summarizes other
key features of the SFP:
• Optional –the SFP is not mandatory and will be an alternative option for an applicant.
• Planned development approach – the SFP will allow for a flexible application of standards
to achieve performance and take a holistic site-planning approach to development. However,
June 14, 2011 Page 11
it will vary from the existing Project Development Plan process, including but not limited
to outreach, standards and eligibility criteria to name a few.
• Eligibility based on location – developments which are located within one of the City’s
targeted redevelopment areas or targeted activity centers (as defined by City Plan, see
Attachment 6) will be eligible to use the SFP. For those projects not located in a targeted
area, additional criteria must be met in order to use the SFP, i.e., minimum size,
extraordinary site constraints, etc.
• Sustainable – projects that develop using the SFP will be held to stricter standards in terms
of sustainability. Staff is developing a Sustainability Performance Matrix that will assign
points to various site and building features in order to ensure that SFP projects are meeting
the City’s environmental, social, and economic goals.
• Inclusive – SFP projects will have a separate yet similar review process that will encourage
dialogue early and often between applicants, affected property owners, and City staff. The
focus of review will be on the front-end of a potential project to ensure appropriate site
planning, neighborhood input, and compatibility considerations are incorporated into the
ultimate design and layout of the development.
• Incentivized – in addition to the flexible application of development standards, SFP projects
will also benefit from having use flexibility and could also extended vesting. Other
incentives such as a density bonus and impact fee delay are also being considered to
encourage high performing projects.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Guide (DRG)
2. Land Use Code Issues
3. Example of variance to site setback requirement
4. Example of variance to LCUASS standards
5. Example of variance for “green street”
6. Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable (SFP) Eligible Areas, as defined in City Plan
7. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
12
Variances Variances and and Modifications Modifications
Example: Green
Streets
•Landscaping
•Sidewalk
•Vertical curb
ATTACHMENT 4
Land Use Code Issues
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Issue Issue Name
822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to allow a residential structure to be as high, 4
stories, as a non-residential or mixed-use building.
870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition to the 25% threshold at which point an
existing use-by-right development can expand before bringing the site up to Code/constructing public
871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add the design standards for multi-family
buildings that already exist in L-M-N 4.5(E)(4).
872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that such dimensions refer to off-street parking
areas, not on-street.
873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10
days prior to P.D.P. submittal.
874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer yards to the list to address residential
development in less urban situations.
875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the glitch between maximum allowable density of
two units per net acre and the minimum required lot size of one-half acre.
876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the language about the non-applicability of
minimum required lot size within a Cluster Plan.
877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to nullify the potential of having
overlapping submittals.
878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a private drive can be tailored to unique
circumstances, upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or private
880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting period between a project denial and a re-submittal.
881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to
move from Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded at
County regarding dwelling unit prohibition.
882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review Standards - to delete the reference to
compliance with M-M-N, C-C, N-C block standards.
883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a minimum of 5 calendar days between the
neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into the
884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove ambiguity regarding the status of work in the
public right-of-way done by the Downtown Development Authority.
885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a fence is measured from grade as it existed at
the time of construction.
887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity starts with the expiration of the appeal
period for P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan.
888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify
the point of measurement for streams.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 5
Issue Issue Name
889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility - to delete the reference to forms being
available from the Community Planning and Environmental Services department as it is not regulatory
and that department no longer exists.
890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a street to connect to more than one other
891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards - to replace a diagram, Measurement of Height
Limits, for consistency and to improve graphic readability.
892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards - to replace the diagram, Upper Floor
Setbacks, to improve clarity and consistency.
893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in calculating allowable floor area for single
family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones.
894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the
point of measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached houses in the
N-C-L and N-C-M zones.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 2
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to allow a
residential structure to be as high, 4 stories, as a non-residential
Problem Statement
In the Employment Zone, there are two maximum height standards:
• Non-residential and mixed-use buildings – four stories
• Residential buildings – three stories.
The original reasoning behind the 3-story limit may be related to the general idea of
the E zone as a district where residential development is a secondary, supporting
use. Higher-intensity urban housing may have been envisioned as more
appropriate to other zone districts where such housing fits better with zoning
purposes, such as the M-M-N zone. Staff, however, finds no clear harm in allowing
residential buildings to be 4 stories in the E zone. The main issues are land use
and community appearance and design.
Land Use. As noted above, residential buildings are a secondary use in the E zone.
Once a given piece of land within the Employment zone is approved for
residential use, an additional story does not affect the availability of land for
primary uses. In other words, there is no opportunity cost or impact on the
purposes of the E zone in allowing an additional story of residential use. In
addition, it may even be possible for residential units to be built on less land per
unit because the additional story would increase the feasibility of locating parking
within the structure.
Community Appearance and Design. The design implications of a four stories
residential building would be the same or better than for non-residential buildings.
Residential buildings are more likely to have animating features, articulation,
balconies and compatible character in general, with any surrounding residential
land uses, which typically generate the sensitivity when juxtaposed with taller
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standard so that the maximum allowable
height for all buildings, regardless of occupancy, would be four stories.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
28 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories.
870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition to the
25% threshold at which point an existing use-by-right
development can expand before bringing the site up to
Problem Statement
Section 3.8.20(B) of the LUC explains that a proposed addition to a building that
was originally constructed as a use-by-right under the previous zoning regulations
must comply with the requirements found in Section 1.6.5 of the Code.
Section 1.6.5(B) requires that whenever a use-by-right building is proposed to be
enlarged by more than 25% of the floor area that existed prior to the adoption of
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 14
Code/constructing public improvements. the LUC, the entire site must then be brought into compliance
with the applicable
standards in Articles 3 and 4 of the Code.
There has been concern that large existing buildings are allowed to construct very
sizeable additions without being required to make upgrades to the site. For
example, a 12,500 square foot addition to a 50,000 square foot building could be
constructed without the need to make any site upgrades. This results in an
addition that can have a significant impact without the ability of the City to
improve the safety and aesthetics of the property. Such things as improved
pedestrian connections, bike racks, public sidewalks, additional handicap parking
spaces, lighting and landscaping would not be addressed.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to ensure that additions of a significant size will result in the ability to
require beneficial upgrades and amenities consistent with the purposes of the LUC,
staff recommends that an addition which increases the floor area by more than 25%
OR exceeds 5000 square feet should require that the site be upgraded.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 1.6.5(B) Adds a new measure by which older projects must be brought
up to Code.
871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add the design
standards for multi-family buildings that already exist in L-M-N
Problem Statement
The L-M-N zone already contains design standards for multi-family buildings
containing more than eight dwelling units and for multi-family dwellings
containing between four and eight dwelling units when three or more stories in
height. But, in the M-M-N, there are no building design standards for multi-family
housing.
There is an indication that C.S.U. desires to keep growing its undergraduate
enrollment and yet there is on-campus housing for only approximately 5,000
students. The balance of the student body, therefore, must find off-campus
housing within the surrounding community. A significant number of new student
housing dwelling units are expected to be located within apartment complexes that
are financed, entitled, constructed and managed as large single entities that operate
at the national level. There is a risk, therefore, that new student rental housing may
end up looking formulaic and prototypical and undifferentiated from other college
communities. To keep our community distinctive, adding building design
standards to the M-M-N would contribute to the overall quality of our
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to roll over the existing multi-family building design
standards from the L-M-N zone into the M-M-N zone with adjustments that fit the
appropriate scale of the allowable density in the M-M-N.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
16 4.6(E) Adds design standards for multi-family buildings in MMN.
872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that such
dimensions refer to off-street parking areas, not on-street.
Problem Statement
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 14
The opening sentence simply says “parking areas for automobiles…” which could
be interpreted to mean all parking areas including both parking lots and along a
public street. In fact, this section was always intended to refer solely to off-street
parking areas as on-street parking areas are already governed by LCUASS.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add the descriptor “off-street” to avoid confusion.
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking lots.
873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to codify
that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to P.D.P.
Problem Statement
An E.C.S. is required if the development site contains, or is within 500 feet of, a
natural habitat or feature, or the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life
and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection.
Practically speaking, it makes sense for Staff to receive and evaluate an E.C.S. prior
to submittal. Since the E.C.S. may have an impact on site planning, buffer zones,
mitigation measures and the like, the review should occur such that its findings can
be implemented in a timely manner. Ten working days prior to submittal is
considered ample time for Staff to review and evaluate the E.C.S. and matches the
condition of zoning of the recently annexed property at the southwest corner of I-
25 and Carpenter Road. This code revision was reviewed by City Council at their
March 9, 2010 worksession and found favorable.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is add a requirement that an E.C.S. be submitted 10 days
prior to a P.D.P. submittal.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal date of E.C.S.
874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer yards to the
list to address residential development in less urban situations.
Problem Statement
Presently, this section is clear and describes attributes that are oriented to urban
environments. For example, the standard cites a number of characteristics that are to
be evaluated to promote project compatibility between differing uses including
scale, form, materials, colors, hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise
generating activities and similar restrictions.
The standard is silent, however, where residential projects of varying densities may
need a design feature to promote compatibility that is not listed in the standard.
For example, where a proposed L-M-N subdivision (minimum of 4.00 dwelling
units per net acre) is adjoining an existing or future U-E subdivision (maximum of
2.00 dwelling units per net acre), the use of a buffer yard may be found to be an
appropriate design solution. In a less dense residential context, simply responding
to the existing attributes in the standard may not be sufficient. As the Growth
Management Area begins to fill in, especially in the northeast quadrant of the City,
adding “buffer yards” to the Land Use Transition standard would be beneficial for
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 3 of 14
all parties.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add Buffer Yards to the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.5.1(H) Adds buffer yards as a land use transition technique.
875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the glitch
between maximum allowable density of two units per net acre and
Problem Statement
The problem is that the two density/intensity standards do not work in
synchronization. This was not the original intent of these two standards and leads
to confusion.
When a development proposal complies with the minimum required one-half acre
lot size across the entire project, then the NET density will come in over the
maximum allowable 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre.
This is because the standard, as written, requires that land must be netted out from
the gross acreage. Land area that is netted out is typically dedicated to serve the
development for a variety of purposes such as streets, fire access, utilities,
stormwater conveyance and ponds, common areas, and the like. This lowers the
acreage which increases density. This results in an applicant either seeking a
modification to have a lot(s) come in slightly under one-half acre or seek a
modification to come in slightly over 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre.
In other words, complying with both one-half acre lot sizes and coming in at no
higher than 2.00 dwelling units per NET acre is nearly impossible to accomplish.
Currently, the two standards would require at least one lot to sufficiently exceed
one-half acre in size to compensate for the loss of acreage due to netting out land.
The effect is that the required minimum lot size of one-half acre is not really accurate
in a defacto sense if a compensating lot is needed to achieve compliance.
Or, the applicant would be obligated to seek a Modification to either the minimum
lot size or the overall average density.
As an example, let’s assume we have a parcel of land consisting of two gross acres.
Simple arithmetic would allow a maximum of four units. This would be calculated
at 2.00 dwelling units per GROSS acre.
But, since land must be netted out to serve these four lots for a variety of purposes,
as mentioned, this lowers the acreage which increases density.
In the above example, if .25 acre is netted out, then the gross acreage is reduced to
1.75 net acres. With four lots, the resulting overall average density would increase
to 2.28 dwelling units per net acre.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed revision would be to determine density in the U-E zone based on
gross acreage versus net acreage.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 4 of 14
the minimum required lot size of one-half acre. 14 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density
to work with required minimum lot
size.
876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the language
about the non-applicability of minimum required lot size within a
Problem Statement
The standard states that the minimum lot size in the U-E of one-half acre may be
waived by the Planning and Zoning Board for a Cluster Plan. In fact, the minimum
lot size simply does not apply and no waiver is necessary.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to clarify that there is no waiver per se and that the required
minimum lot size is not applicable.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
15 4.2(E)(2)(c) Clarifies that a waiver is not needed for smaller lots within the
Cluster Plan..
877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P. Standards - to
nullify the potential of having overlapping submittals.
Problem Statement
The code allows for the concurrent submittal of an O.D.P. and a first phase P.D.P.
This requires a proper sequence in that the O.D.P. must be considered and
approved prior to consideration of the P.D.P. The problem is a decision by the P &
Z Board on the O.D.P. may be appealed to City Council and that it often takes
several weeks for such an appeal to make it onto Council’s agenda.
During the period between the P & Z decision and the City Council Appeal
hearing, however, the P.D.P. is held in abeyance. But, the code does not address
what level of planning activity may be associated with this P.D.P. during this
timeframe. This leads to confusion as to the status of the P.D.P. and what may or
may not be appropriate with regard to the further processing of the P.D.P.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed revision is intended to address this void by clearly stating that no
action (neighborhood meeting, conceptual review, preliminary design review,
stand-alone Request for Modification or formal re-submittal of plans) may occur.
This quiet period is intended to provide City Council, and all other parties-in-
interest, with clear and unambiguous record by which to consider an appeal of the
O.D.P. Only after Council takes action on the Appeal of the O.D.P. may further
planning activity take place on the P.D.P.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 2.3.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of an O.D.P.
6 2.4.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of a P.D.P.
878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a
private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances, upgraded so
that it meets urban design objectives and functions like a public or
Problem Statement
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 5 of 14
private street. The Land Use Code and LCUASS identify three kinds of roadways:
Public Street - LCUASS
Private Street - privately owned but constructed to LCUASS
Private Drive – parking lot drive aisles and parking lots
There may be circumstances where a public street may not always be necessary to
serve a development project, or a portion of a development project. But,
practically, we are not seeing the use of the private street and the private drive may
be inadequate. This is primarily due to the reality that if a private street is
constructed to LCUASS level, then in all likelihood, it will become a fully
dedicated public street.
There may be circumstances where a private street may have some benefit. But since
a private street is rarely used, the upgrading of a private drive may be appropriate.
The use of private drives has a place in the future development of our City. For
example, two recent projects, Front Range Village (Council Tree - private drive) and
Caribou Apartments (private street) are examples where private drives and streets
fulfill a role in the community street network.
There are sections of the Code that call for public or private streets in order to meet
urban design objectives. Presently, the Code does not allow an upgraded, street-
like private drive to accomplish these objectives.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend Section 3.6.2(L) to allow for an upgraded,
street-like private drive where deemed appropriate in an urban context. The
purpose and intent of street-like private drives is to allow more flexibility in the
design of the facilities, while still providing the look, feel and function of streets
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 3.6.2(L) Adds Street-Like Private Drive as an option by which to provide
access.
30 5.1.2 Adds a definition of a Street-Like Private Drive.
880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting period
between a project denial and a re-submittal.
Problem Statement
As an increasing amount of development is infill development, there will be more
existing conditions to address. One of the existing conditions is the existing
neighbors/neighborhoods that are potentially impacted. During a long
development process, neighbors in our community are actively engaged, which
takes time and energy to stay involved in and participate in the public outreach and
hearing processes.
In an effort to prevent a continual development review and public outreach/public
meeting process upon a neighborhood/interested parties and provide the
opportunity for more thoughtful design and incorporation of mitigation measures,
Staff is proposing no application for a development plan or rezoning shall be
accepted by the City within six (6) months following a final decision on a prior
development plan or rezoning application relating to all or any portion of that same
property. This provision is intended to run with the land, not any particular
applicant. A “final decision” shall mean:
For Project Development Plans:
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 6 of 14
1. Denial of the Project Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board or
Hearing Officer without an appeal to the City Council;
2. Denial by the City Council in the event of an appeal;
For Rezoning Applications:
1. Withdrawal of the rezoning application occurring after the Planning and Zoning
Board action.
2. A vote by the City Council denying the rezoning ordinance.
Staff submits that this period preventing applications to be submitted will address
the issues stated above.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to establish a six-month delay period after a project is denied.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.2.11(D) Establishes a post denial delay period.
881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with Habitable
Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from Type One review to
Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) with affadavit to be recorded
Problem Statement
In 2004, the Current Planning Department, in conjunction with an architectural
consultant, undertook a public process to evaluate the policies related to the
construction of detached dwelling units in the back yards of lots served by
existing alleys. This effort built upon the existing body of work that was done in
1996 which resulted in recommended design guidelines. Known as alley houses
or carriage houses, these dwellings proved to be controversial due to their design,
size, height, increased traffic in alleys and the impact on privacy for adjoining
properties.
The 2004 process resulted in defining two distinct uses, each with their own set of
unique characteristics.
1. Detached dwelling unit, solely or in combination with a garage, and codified as
a Carriage House.
2. Detached structure with water or sewer services, solely or in combination with a
garage - but not a dwelling unit. This is now known as an Accessory Building
with Habitable Space and is typically used for a workshop, recreation room, studio
or home office. What separates this from a regular garage is that there is a water
fixture (sink, water line, toilet, hose bib). The relationship between the habitable
space and the garage can be either over-under or side-by-side. Or, as mentioned,
the building can stand alone without being attached to a garage.
In all three zones, and in response to the concern about Carriage Houses, Accessory
Buildings with Habitable Space were deemed to rise to the level of needing to be
subject to Administrative (Type One) review. This process requirement was
intended to address concerns expressed about the past and potential illegal
conversions of to dwelling units.
Since 2004, there have not been any appeals for Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space. The public hearings have revealed that attendance at these
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 7 of 14
at County regarding dwelling unit prohibition. hearings is extremely light and seldom include
opposition. For those who do
attend the Type One public hearing, staff has observed that their primary concern
was to ensure that the new structure would not evolve into a residence.
Staff finds that the current requirement for a Type One hearing for Accessory
Buildings with Habitable Space is an example of over-process as it is labor
intensive for an applicant and inefficient from a staff and city resource perspective.
Staff is not proposing to modify the Type One hearing process for Carriage Houses.
Rather, with regard to bringing water or sewer services to an accessory building,
the public can be served by an available alternative which will also ensure that
adding such services is not for a residential unit while eliminating the need to
Proposed Solution Overview process as a Type One.
Staff proposes eliminating the requirement for a Type One hearing for a water or
sewer fixture in a building containing habitable space within the N-C-L, N-C-M
and N-C-B zoning districts and proposes instead to move the use to a B.D.R. and
require an affidavit be signed by the owner indicating that the water or sewer
fixture is for a non-residential unit – simply for habitable space; recording the
affidavit and conditioning the building permit accordingly.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
17 4.7(B)(1)(b) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in the N-C-L.
18 4.7(B)(2)[c] Move the use out of the Type One in the N-C-L.
19 4.7(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-L.
20 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-M.
21 4.8(B)(2)[c] Moves the use out of the Type One in the N-C-M.
22 4.8(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-M.
23 4.9(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-B.
24 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Tyep One in the N-C-B.
25 4.9(D)(3) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-B.
882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review Standards -
to delete the reference to compliance with M-M-N, C-C, N-C block
Problem Statement
Here are the block requirements for all three zones:
Block structure. Development shall consist of a series of complete blocks bounded
by streets (public or private). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power
lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may
form up to two (2) sides of a block.
Block size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. In the
C-C and N-C, blocks containing supermarkets shall be limited to 10 acres.
Minimum building frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50)
percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building
frontage, plazas or other functional open space.
(The block requirement may be waived if compliance is infeasible due to unusual
topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or
feature.)
The problem is that the block features may not be knowable at the time of the
O.D.P. For example, the City’s Master Street Plan is calibrated for arterial and
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 8 of 14
standards. collector streets only. The number and pattern of local streets (public or private),
therefore, is deferred to the Project Development Plan phase. Similarly, the size of
the block, which may be formed by local streets, may not be ascertained at the
O.D.P. level. Finally, the number of buildings, and their exact locations, may not
be specifically determined with sufficient accuracy until the P.D.P. phase.
As presently stated, the standard calls for a level of review that is found to be more
appropriate for the Project Development Plan versus the Overall Development Plan.
The proposed revision does not dilute the block standards. Rather the standards
are simple deferred to the proper venue.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the reference to compliance with block
standards in three zones from the requirements for an O.D.P.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 2.3.2(H)(1) Removes requirement for compliance with block standards for
O.D.P.'s in M-M-N, C-C and N-C zones.
883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a minimum
of 5 calendar days between the neighborhood meeting and
submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input
Problem Statement
There is a concern that applicants have been compressing their schedules at the
expense of taking the time to properly consider or incorporate the input derived
from the neighborhood meeting. This diminishes the importance of the
neighborhood meeting process. In order to address this issue, a five day
mandatory interval between the neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans is
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to require a minimum of five calendar days between the
neighborhood meeting and submittal. This would have the effect of pushing the
submittal into the following week allowing sufficient time to incorporate comments
from those attending the neighborhood information meeting.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.2.2(A) Establishes five days between neighborhood meeting and
submittal.
884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove ambiguity
regarding the status of work in the public right-of-way done by the
Problem Statement
The definition of Development contains two sections. The first section describes
what Development is and the second describes what Development is not. In the
second section, there is ambiguity as to the status of capital improvement work
done by the City or the Downtown Development Authority.
The D.D.A. is sponsoring an ongoing alley improvement project within their
jurisdiction but the definition of Development does not specifically exempt them
from the development review process. Both the City and D.D.A. have expressed an
interest in continuing the alley improvement program and would like to put the
D.D.A. on par with the City of Fort Collins. Just as the City’s capital improvement
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 9 of 14
Downtown Development Authority. projects do not go through the formal development review
process, so too would
D.D.A.’s alley improvement project. (Note that all capital improvement projects are
reviewed by all affected departments and utilities and outside utility providers, but
not taken through a public hearing process.)
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to exempt the City and the D.D.A. from the formal
development review process. As proposed, work by D.D.A. would still have to be
approved by the City and geographically restricted to their service territory.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
29 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Development.
885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a fence is
measured from grade as it existed at the time of construction.
Problem Statement
The height of a fence is currently measured from the original finished grade of the
lot directly under the fence. This is problematic because it is difficult, if not
impossible in some cases, to determine where the grade was many years ago when
the lot was first created. It is more realistic to expect that the height of a fence
should be measured from the finished grade of the lot that existed at the time a fence
was constructed, rather than guessing where the grade might have been 100 years
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to facilitate enforcement of our fence regulations and to create a regulation
that is sensible and can be easily understood by fence contractors and occupants
of dwellings, finished grade shall be defined as such grade that existing at the time
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 3.8.11(D) Clarifies how to establish grade for measuring fence height.
887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time validity
starts with the expiration of the appeal period for P.D.P. and to
Problem Statement
The two standards need to be clarified. The first, referring to the Project
Development and Plat, fails to account for period of time should there be an appeal
to Council. The second, referring to the Final Plan and Final Plat and other site
specific development plans (as defined) falsely accounts for a period of time for an
appeal to Council because these plans are not subject to appeal.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add in the time for an appeal for the former and delete
the reference to the appeal period for the latter.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2.11[C] Adds in the time period if there is an appeal to Council.
4 2.2.11(D) Deletes the time period for an appeal to Council.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 10 of 14
888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study and
Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of measurement
Problem Statement
Conflicting language appears in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. In Section
3.4.1(D), subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study be
collected on “the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or
body of water on the site.” However, in Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires that
“stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be
measured from the level of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract
or parcel of land.”
Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code provides guidance for resolving internal
conflicts in the code. As bank (or top of bank) is both the more specific and more
stringent of the two terms, top of bank is a more appropriate term for use in
determining the point of measurement from which to begin the establishment of the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. In addition, the use of the term bankfull discharge is
inappropriate for irrigation ditches, as they are unlikely to have bankfull, or
channel-forming, discharge. Finally, the term top of bank is more consistently
applied in the field than bankfull discharge and has been identified in Plan Fort
Collins as the way to measure the buffer along the Poudre River (see Policy ENV
24.3 – Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers, which states “the buffer should be a
minimum of three hundred (300) feet wide, beginning at the outer limits of the river
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to remove the term “bankfull discharge” from Section
3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code and instead use the term “top of bank.” In section
3.4.1(D) the term “bank” will be expanded for consistency to also say “top of
bank.” Finally, a definition for “top of bank” will be added to Article 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code. These three, simple changes have the effect of providing a clearer,
more accurate point of measurement for the protection of our stream and riparian
resources and in no way dilutes the intent of the original code language.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Deletes Level of Bankfull Discharge and adds Top of Bank.
32 5.1.2 Adds a definition of Top of Bank.
889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility - to delete
the reference to forms being available from the Community
Planning and Environmental Services department as it is not
Problem Statement
As written, the standard contains a reference as to where to obtain a certain form.
There are numerous other forms associated with a wide variety of activities related to
items in the Land Use Code but there are no corresponding references in the actual
code language. Since the reference to a form is not regulatory, it should be deleted
from the Code. Finally, with the passage of time, references to certain department
names run the risk of becoming obsolete as is the case with this standard.
Proposed Solution Overview
The revision is to strike the reference.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 3.4.7[C] Strikes unnecessary and obsolete language.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 11 of 14
890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a street
to connect to more than one other street.
Problem Statement
The problem is that the definition, as written, is too limiting by stipulating that a
private street can intersect or connect with only one other street. The result is that
such a street would, in effect, be a cul-de-sac or stub street. Other practical
applications, such as a loop street, would not be allowed. Other circumstances may
warrant the use of Private Street where the long term ownership and maintenance of
a public street may not be desired. Since a Private Street must be constructed to the
same standards as a public street, there is no risk to structural integrity,
functionality or public safety. Finally, a definition cannot be modified so the use
of a Private Street has proven to be extremely rare even though there is a place for a
Private Street in the overall street network of the City.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed revision would delete the reference to connecting with only one
other street.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
31 5.1.2 Broadens the ability to use a private street.
891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards - to replace a
diagram, Measurement of Height Limits, for consistency and to
Problem Statement
The existing diagram, labeled as Figure 18.6, is not clear nor graphically consistent
with the height standards in the Downtown zone – Canyon Avenue and Civic
Center Sub Districts.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the diagram by replacing the hand-drawn sketch in Figure 18.6 with a new
graphic.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 4.16(D)(2)[c] Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard.
892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards - to replace
the diagram, Upper Floor Setbacks, to improve clarity and
Problem Statement
First, the existing graphic contains some incorrect labeling referring to setbacks
being ¼ of the building height. These faulty labels date back to a draft concept
that was not carried forward when the standards were originally developed and
adopted in 2006. Second, the hand-drawn graphic is not as clear and graphically
consistent with the Downtown Zoning District as the proposed replacement. Third,
the graphic has a caption instead of a Figure number and title, and the caption is
inconsistent with the Land Use Code format.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the diagram to improve the illustrative intent of the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 12 of 14
27 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard.
893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in
calculating allowable floor area for single family detached houses
Problem Statement
In 2010, the City of Fort Collins, along with a Citizen Advisory Committee,
investigated various issues related to new construction and additions to single
family detached homes in the East Side and West Side neighborhoods. The
process resulted in Ordinance No. 003, 2011 being adopted by City Council on
February 1, 2011. The Ordinance was later repealed in response to a citizen
petition, with a commitment to further address the key issues. The Ordinance
consisted of revised standards for maximum house size in the Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation Low
Density (NCL) zoning districts.
Presently, the only metric regulating the size of a house in the relevant zoning
districts is a floor area limit. There is no Code standard that effectively links the
floor area limit to the actual size of a house in terms of volume. This was referred to
as the “volume loophole”. The inadvertent result is that a one-story house could
be virtually twice as large as a two-story house, covering twice the lot area with
equal height, in the case of an unusual design with a tall single story. This
possibility is contrary to the intent of the limits.
Ordinance 003, 2011 included a section that closed the volume loophole by
assigning second-floor equivalents to be counted as floor area in upper portions of
high-volume houses. These particular standards did not generate as much
controversy as the other aspects of the Ordinance that led to the repeal, and so it is
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to revive two standards that would count space as a
second floor equivalent, if the height exceeds that of a typical one-story house.
One would assign second floor area to any interior space that exceeds 18-1/2 feet
in height, and the other would assign second floor area to space if an exterior wall
exceeds 13 feet in height. The latter standard includes a point of measurement for
side wall height, to be at the side property line rather than the finished grade at the
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
19 4.7(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-L.
22 4.8(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-B.
894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side Wall Height -
to add a standard establishing the point of measurement for
determining the height of a sidewall for single family detached
Problem Statement
This proposed revision is also a carry over from Ordinance 003, 2011, similar to
Item 893.
Existing standards require side wall setbacks based on the wall height, as measured
from the finished grade at the base of the wall. Thus, if earth is piled up against the
foundation, the wall height measurement is reduced. This is contrary to the intent
of the side wall setback standards, which address the impact of wall height on
neighboring properties. From the standpoint of a neighboring property, piling
earth up against the base of a wall does not mitigate the height impacts and thus
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 13 of 14
houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones. Proposed Solution Overview should not be allowed to
reduce the height measurement.
The proposed solution is to establish the point of measurement for determining
side wall height at the property line, rather than the base of the wall. Specifically,
the point is the lowest point of the interior side lot line opposite the wall. This
revision is consistent with the previous revision relating to the volume issue.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
19 4.7(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the
basis for determining sidewall height.
22 4.8(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the
basis for determining sidewall height.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 14 of 14
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue
1 1.6.5(B) Adds a new measure by which older projects must be brought 870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in addition
up to Code. to the 25% threshold at which point an existing use-by-
right development can expand before bringing the site up
to Code/constructing public improvements.
2 2.2.2(A) Establishes five days between neighborhood meeting and 883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to establish a
submittal. minimum of 5 calendar days between the neighborhood
meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or
incorporate citizen input into the plan.
3 2.2.11[C] Adds in the time period if there is an appeal to Council. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time
validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for
P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan.
4 2.2.11(D) Establishes a post denial delay period. 880 Amend 2.2.11(D) - Procedures - to mandate a waiting
period between a project denial and a re-submittal.
4 2.2.11(D) Deletes the time period for an appeal to Council. 887 Amend 2.2.11[C] & (D)(1) - Lapse - to clarify that time
validity starts with the expiration of the appeal period for
P.D.P. and to clarify that there is no appeal of a Final Plan.
5 2.3.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of an O.D.P. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P.
Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping
submittals.
5 2.3.2(H)(1) Removes requirement for compliance with block standards for 882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review
O.D.P.'s in M-M-N, C-C and N-C zones. Standards - to delete the reference to compliance with M-M-
N, C-C, N-C block standards.
6 2.4.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of a P.D.P. 877 Amend 2.3.2(H) and 2.4.2(H) - O.D.P. and P.D.P.
Standards - to nullify the potential of having overlapping
submittals.
7 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking lots. 872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify that
such dimensions refer to off-street parking areas, not on-
street.
8 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal date of E.C.S. 873 Amend 3.4.1(D) - Ecological Characterization Study - to
codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to
P.D.P. submittal.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 4
Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue
9 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Deletes Level of Bankfull Discharge and adds Top of Bank. 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study
and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of
measurement for streams.
10 3.4.7[C] Strikes unnecessary and obsolete language. 889 Amend 3.4.7[C] - Determination of Landmark Eligibility -
to delete the reference to forms being available from the
Community Planning and Environmental Services
department as it is not regulatory and that department no
longer exists.
11 3.5.1(H) Adds buffer yards as a land use transition technique. 874 Amend 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition - to add buffer
yards to the list to address residential development in less
urban situations.
12 3.6.2(L) Adds Street-Like Private Drive as an option by which to 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a
provide access. private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances,
upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and
functions like a public or private street.
13 3.8.11(D) Clarifies how to establish grade for measuring fence height. 885 Amend 3.8.11(D) - Fences - to clarify that the height of a
fence is measured from grade as it existed at the time of
construction.
14 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density to work with required minimum 875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the
lot size. glitch between maximum allowable density of two units per
net acre and the minimum required lot size of one-half acre.
15 4.2(E)(2)(c) Clarifies that a waiver is not needed for smaller lots within the 876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the
Cluster Plan.. language about the non-applicability of minimum required
lot size within a Cluster Plan.
16 4.6(E) Adds design standards for multi-family buildings in MMN. 871 Amend 4.6(E) - M-M-N Development Standards - to add
the design standards for multi-family buildings that already
exist in L-M-N 4.5(E)(4).
17 4.7(B)(1)(b) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
18 4.7(B)(2)[c] Move the use out of the Type One in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 4
Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue
19 4.7(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-L. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
19 4.7(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-L. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in
calculating allowable floor area for single family detached
houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones.
19 4.7(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side
basis for determining sidewall height. Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of
measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for
single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M
zones.
20 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
21 4.8(B)(2)[c] Moves the use out of the Type One in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
22 4.8(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-M. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
22 4.8(D) Adds volume as a measure of floor area in the N-C-B. 893 Amend 4.7(D) and 4.8(D) to close the volume loophole in
calculating allowable floor area for single family detached
houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M zones.
22 4.8(E) Establishes the lowest point along an interior side lot line as the 894 Amend 4.7(E)(4) and 4.8(E)(4) - Measurement of Side
basis for determining sidewall height. Wall Height - to add a standard establishing the point of
measurement for determining the height of a sidewall for
single family detached houses in the N-C-L and N-C-M
zones.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 3 of 4
Ord. Section Code Revision Effect Issue
23 4.9(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
24 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Tyep One in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
25 4.9(D)(3) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-B. 881 Amend 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 - Accessory Buildings with
Habitable Space - in NCL, NCM and NCB - to move from
Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.)
with affadavit to be recorded at County regarding dwelling
unit prohibition.
26 4.16(D)(2)[c] Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 891 Amend 4.16(D)(2)[c] - Downtown Building Standards -
to replace a diagram, Measurement of Height Limits, for
consistency and to improve graphic readability.
27 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard. 892 Amend 4.16(D)(4)(b)2. - Downtown Building Standards
- to replace the diagram, Upper Floor Setbacks, to improve
clarity and consistency.
28 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories. 822 Amend 4.27(D)(4)(a) - Employment Zone - Height - to
allow a residential structure to be as high, 4 stories, as a non-
residential or mixed-use building.
29 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Development. 884 Revise 5.1.2 - Defintion of Development - to remove
ambiguity regarding the status of work in the public right-
of-way done by the Downtown Development Authority.
30 5.1.2 Adds a definition of a Street-Like Private Drive. 878 Amend 3.6.2(L) - Private Drives - to add flexibility so that a
private drive can be tailored to unique circumstances,
upgraded so that it meets urban design objectives and
functions like a public or private street.
31 5.1.2 Broadens the ability to use a private street. 890 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of Private Street - to allow such a
street to connect to more than one other street.
32 5.1.2 Adds a definition of Top of Bank. 888 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study
and Establishment of Buffer Zones - to clarify the point of
measurement for streams.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 6
1
1
Development Review Overview
City Council Work Session
June 14, 2011
Steve Dush, Director
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Megan Bolin, City Planner
2
City Council Work Session
June 14, 2011
I. Development Review Overview
II. Land Use Code Changes
III. Sustainable, Flexible,
Predictable (SFP) Zoning Tool
ATTACHMENT 7
2
3
General Direction Sought
What feedback does Council have regarding:
•The Development Process Improvement Strategies?
•The proposed Land Use Code Changes?
•The general approach and methodology of the SFP
zoning tool?
4
I. Development Review Overview
3
5
Development Review Background
In 2003:
•Zucker Systems did organizational critique of DRC
•Zucker Report provided 50+ recommendations
• Recommendation implementation is on‐going
• Council adopted Resolution 2003‐105 stating:
The intent of the City’s development review process is
to be policy‐neutral as to growth
6
•The Development Review Process is well defined and
outlined in the Development Review Guide
• Development Review is an iterative process between
staff and applicant
•Project applicants routinely meet with staff multiple
times before submitting an application
Development Review Background
4
7
•Critical to development when operating under a
prescriptive code
•Code permits two types of variances and one type of
modification
•Variances and modifications can lead to more creative
and practical outcomes than strict compliance
Variances and Modifications
8
Application Variances & Modifications
•Examples:
–Height
–Setbacks
– Landscaping
–Density
• Appeals made to City Council
Variances and Modifications
5
9
Variances and Modifications
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS) Variances
Examples:
•Driveway width & spacing
•Curve Radii
• Pavement requirements
• Street Width
Appeals from City Engineer to CDNS Director to City Council
10
Variances and
Modifications
Example: Rigden Farm
•10 LCUASS Variances;
examples include:
•sidewalk widths;
•flowline to flowline widths
•1.2% point grade breaks
•Reduce vertical curve length
6
11
Variances and Modifications
Example:
•Heavily Treed
Lot
•Limited Sun
•Setback
Variance to
Allow
Greenhouse
12
Variances and Modifications
Example: Green
Streets
•Landscaping
•Sidewalk
•Vertical curb
7
13
Outreach Feedback
•Staff is on the applicant’s “side”
• Neighbors don’t have enough say in the process
• Applicant’s past performance should be considered
• Frustration that neighbors cannot discuss certain
development aspects with Council
• Public Hearing Process changes are needed
14
Proposals in Response to Feedback
Development Review Outreach Meeting:
•Same notification area
•Only staff and neighbors present
•Discuss process, not application
• Identify lead neighbors and communication tree
8
15
Potential Land Use Code Changes:
• Establish a “Cooling Off Period” for denied
applications
• Require minimum of five days between neighborhood
meeting and application submittal
• Prohibit concurrent applications on the same parcel
Proposals in Response to Feedback
16
Continue to create and improve education
materials:
– Handouts
– Brochures
– Development Review Flowchart
– Develop Post Process and Post Development
Feedback Tools
–Website (fcgov.com/drg.com)
– Educational Videos
Proposals in Response to Feedback
9
17
II. Land Use Code Changes
18
Land Use Code Changes
Land Use Code is evaluated annually for
potential improvements
•24 amendments are proposed for 2011
•Three are processed‐based in response to recent
concerns
10
19
III. Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable
(SFP) Zoning Tool
20
• Changing development patterns
• Infill sites are constrained and complex
•Land Use Code is prescriptive and lacks
efficient flexibility
• City Plan policy and Planning and Zoning Board
workplan program
Why do we need the SFP?
11
21
• Optional
– zoning overlay option for constrained sites
•Location‐based eligibility
– projects within targeted redevelopment areas and
activity centers
•Planned Development Approach
– flexible performance driven application of
standards and holistic site‐planning
What is the SFP?
22
•Sustainable
– performance‐based metrics; sustainability matrix
•Inclusive
– dialogue early and often between applicant,
affected property owners, and City staff
What is the SFP?
12
23
SFP Eligible Areas
Harmony
Prospect
Mulberry
College
Taft Hill
N
I‐25
24
General Direction Sought
What feedback does Council have regarding:
•The Development Process Improvement Strategies?
•The proposed Land Use Code Changes?
•The general approach and methodology of the SFP
zoning tool?