HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/06/2011 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2011, MAKING VDATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land
Use Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The
proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall
quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code.
Most of the items were taken to the July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. One item was deleted from
consideration for further study. Two items were taken to the August 18, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
All of the proposed revisions included in the Ordinance have received unanimous approval from the Planning and
Zoning Board.
The list of revisions has been reviewed by City Council at two work sessions. First, on March 9, 2010, Council
recommended that the Ecological Characterization Study be submitted 10 working days prior to submittal. This has
been done as described in Code revision number 873. Second, on June 14, 2011, Council indicated general support
for all of the revisions but specifically recommended that the waiting period between the neighborhood meeting and
application submittal be increased from five to ten days. This has been done as described in Code revision number
883. All items related to the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards for Single Family Detached
Dwellings have been forwarded to the appropriate staff working on the Reset Project.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. This continuous
improvement provides for an adaptable regulatory environment yet remains predictable for all users and decision-
makers. While there may be no direct financial and economic impacts in the typical fiscal sense, a dynamic Land Use
Code creates a valid and credible legal framework that serves a vibrant local economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Proposed revision Item 873 would provide for the submittal of an Ecological Characterization Study at least 10 days
prior to submittal of a P.D.P. This allows staff and the applicant to evaluate the results of the study and make the
appropriate adjustments prior to submitting for a Project Development Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 21, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and took
two actions:
1. The Board discussed the items and voted 7 – 0 to recommend approval of all items with the exception of Item
888. As proposed, Item 888 would amend Section 3.4.1(E) – Establishment of Buffer Zones – to clarify that
the point of measurement for streams should be the top of bank instead of full-bank discharge.
2. The Board then separately discussed Item 888. The Board expressed concerns that this particular item would
benefit from further analysis. In addition, specific examples and pictures from the field would help illustrate
the concept being proposed. Further, a specific provision should address a stream channel that is braided.
The overall intent of clarifying the standard is supported but questions about stream character and hydrology
remain and should be addressed.
The Board then voted 4 – 3 to not recommend approval of this one revision. Staff agreed that additional work
on this item is warranted. Consequently, this one item has been pulled from consideration. Staff will endeavor
to refine the standard and offer evidence and field data for the Board’s consideration. Staff commits to
bringing this item forward expeditiously. If found favorable, this revision will be acted upon when ready, and
not held to the annual review cycle.
On August 18, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two additional revisions. These items are:
1. Item 896 slightly revises the language of the Order Of Proceedings At a Public Hearing to provide consistent
criteria for both applicant and public testimony, and to provide guidance for the Planning and Zoning Board
Chairperson or Hearing Officer to determine relevancy of testimony.
2. Item 897 revises the Preliminary Feedback from City Council Regarding Complex Development Proposals
by broadening the criteria by which a developer may bring a project to City Council for a pre-hearing prior to
submittal.
The Board voted 5 – 0 to recommend approval of these two additional items. These two items are now included in
the Ordinance.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach included a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee as well as the
general notice that accompanies both of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearings.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. Summary report of all the issues
3. Cross-reference of the issues to the Ordinance section numbers
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, July 21, 2011
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 18, 2011
6. Work Session Summary, June 14, 2011
7. Work Session Summary, March 9, 2010
Land Use Code Issues
Monday, August 22, 2011
Issue ID# 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)(1)- 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 10 calendar days between the
required neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input
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.
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 street.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Issue ID# Issue Name
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.
895 Amend 3.10.1(A)(B) - Development Standards in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone - so
that the design standards for parking structures would apply to the H-M-N and C-C zones north of
896 Amend 2.2.7[C](2) &(4) - Order of Proceedings at a Public Hearing - to provide consistent criteria for
both applicant and public testimony and to provide guidance for the P & Z Chairperson or Hearing Officer
to determine the relevancy of testimony.
897 Amend 2.1.2(H) - Preliminary Feedback from City Council Regarding Complex Development Proposals -
to liberalize the criteria by which a proposed project may be brought forward to City Council for
preliminary feedback prior to submitting a project.
Monday, August 22, 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 or mixed-use
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 buildings.
And, such a building would allow for more efficient use of land thus promoting infill
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
30 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories in E.
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
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 the
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 1 of 13
ATTACHMENT 2
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 neighborhoods.
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
18 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
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 13
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
9 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking
lots.
873 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)- Ecological Characterization Study - to codify that
the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days prior to P.D.P. submittal.
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
10 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal timing 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 all parties.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 13
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add Buffer Yards to the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 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 the minimum
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, etc. 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
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
16 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density to work with required minimum
lot size.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 13
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
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
17 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
7 2.3.2(H) There can be no overlapping submittals of an O.D.P.
8 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 private street.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code and LCUASS identify three kinds of roadways:
Public Street - LCUASS
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 5 of 13
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-
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 3.6.2(L) Adds Street-Like Private Drive as an option by which to
provide access.
32 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:
1. Denial of the Project Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board or
Hearing Officer without an appeal to the City Council;
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 6 of 13
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
6 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 at County
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 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.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 7 of 13
regarding dwelling unit prohibition. 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 process as a Type One.
Proposed Solution Overview
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
19 4.7(B)(1)(b) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in the N-C-L.
20 4.7(B)(2)[c] Move the use out of the Type One in the N-C-L.
21 4.7(D)(3) Requires an affidavit to be recorded in the N-C-L.
22 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in th N-C-M.
23 4.8(B)(2)[c] Moves the use out of the Type One in the N-C-M.
24 4.8(D) Requires an affidavit in the N-C-M.
25 4.9(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to B.D.R. in the N-C-B.
26 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Type One in the N-C-B.
27 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 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
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 8 of 13
standards. 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
7 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 10
calendar days between the required neighborhood meeting and submittal
of plans in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into the plan.
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 needed.
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
3 2.2.2(A) Establishes ten 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 Downtown
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 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
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 9 of 13
Development Authority. 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
31 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 earlier.
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 of
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 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 clarify that
Problem Statement
The two standards need to be clarified. The first, referring to the Project Development
Plan 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) mistakenly 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
5 2.2.11[C] Adds in the time period if there is an appeal to Council.
6 2.2.11(D) Deletes the time period for an appeal to Council.
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
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 10 of 13
department no longer exists. 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
11 3.4.7[C] Strikes unnecessary and obsolete language.
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
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed revision would delete the reference to connecting with only one other
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
33 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 improve
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
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
28 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 consistency.
Problem Statement
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 11 of 13
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
29 4.16(D)(4)(b)(2) Improves the diagram that illustrates the standard.
895 Amend 3.10.1(A)(B) - Development Standards in the Transit-Oriented
Development Overlay Zone - so that the design standards for parking
structures would apply to the H-M-N and C-C zones north of Prospect
Problem Statement
The development standards for the TOD, including the standards for parking
structures, were adopted in 2007 and are applicable only to parcels south of Prospect
Road. This was done on the theory that parcels north of Prospect Road were in zone
districts where principles of new urbanism were already sufficiently codified.
The problem is that, with respect to parking structures, there are no existing standards
in two of the zone districts covered by the TOD north of Prospect Road. These are the
H-M-N, High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and the C-C, Community
Commercial zones both of which are facing development pressure for large-scale multi-
family projects and where parking structures are contemplated to make the most
efficient use of land. Note that there are existing parking structure standards in the D,
Downtown zone.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the applicability and purpose sections of the TOD
standards to indicate that there would be an exception for the H-M-N and C-C zone
districts, both of which are north of Prospect Road, such that the parking structure
standards would indeed apply.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
15 3.10.1(A)(B) Adds design standards for parking structures in T.O.D. - H-
M-N and C-C zones.
896 Amend 2.2.7[C](2) &(4) - Order of Proceedings at a Public Hearing - to
provide consistent criteria for both applicant and public testimony and
to provide guidance for the P & Z Chairperson or Hearing Officer to
Problem Statement
Presently the Code contains slightly different criteria for the applicant presentation
and public testimony, and contains no guidance regarding the ability of the chair to
determine relevance of testimony. The inconsistency is inadvertent. With guidance as
to relevancy of testimony, the P & Z Chair or Hearing Officer will be able to better
determine relevant testimony which mirrors existing law.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed changes would address this disparity and address the relevance issue
affording the Chair or Hearing Officer the opportunity to decide whether testimony is
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 12 of 13
determine the relevancy of testimony. or is not relevant.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.2.7[C](2)(4) Provides consistency and allows Chair/H.O. to rule on
relevancy.
897 Amend 2.1.2(H) - Preliminary Feedback from City Council Regarding
Complex Development Proposals - to liberalize the criteria by which a
proposed project may be brought forward to City Council for preliminary
Problem Statement
As written, the Code limits the nature of a pre-hearing in front of Council to
legislative matters only such as an annexation petition or an amendment to the city’s
Comprehensive Plan. This may be considered too limiting as Council may desire to
hold a pre-hearing on a wider range of possible actions than just legislative.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to broaden the criteria for a Counci pre-hearing by allowing
any potential project that may need a formal action action by Council versus simply
legislative action. But, the revision would also include two qualifiers that any such
eligible project not be the subject of a future appeal and that the City Manager must
find that the project be found to have a community-wide impact.
The first qualifier addresses the potential of the project being heard by Council at a
pre-hearing and then Council possibly acting as a quasi-judicial body in the event of
an appeal. This is remedied by not allowing a pre-hearing for any project that may
appealed to City Council in a quasi-judicial format.
The second qualifier addresses the potential over-use of the pre-hearing process. This
is remedied by adding a qualifier that for projects applying for a pre-hearing, the City
Manager must first determine that the project is a matter of community-wide impact.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.2.2(H) Broadens criteria for Council pre-hearing.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 13 of 13
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 870 Amend 1.6.5(B) to add "or 5,000 square feet" in
brought up to Code. 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
improvements.
2 2.2.2(H) Broadens criteria for Council pre-hearing. 897 Amend 2.1.2(H) - Preliminary Feedback from City
Council Regarding Complex Development Proposals -
to liberalize the criteria by which a proposed project
may be brought forward to City Council for
preliminary feedback prior to submitting a project.
3 2.2.2(A) Establishes ten days between neighborhood meeting and 883 Amend 2.2.2(A) - Neighborhood Meetings - to
submittal. establish a minimum of 10 calendar days between the
required neighborhood meeting and submittal of plans
in order to consider or incorporate citizen input into
the plan.
4 2.2.7[C](2)(4) Provides consistency and allows Chair/H.O. to rule on 896 Amend 2.2.7[C](2) &(4) - Order of Proceedings at a
relevancy. Public Hearing - to provide consistent criteria for both
applicant and public testimony and to provide
guidance for the P & Z Chairperson or Hearing Officer
to determine the relevancy of testimony.
5 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.
6 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.
6 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.
7 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.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT 3
Ord. Section # Code Revision Effect Issue
7 2.3.2(H)(1) Removes requirement for compliance with block standards 882 Amend 2.3.2(H)(1) - Overall Development Plan Review
for 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.
8 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.
9 3.2.2(L) Clarifies that the standard refers only to off-street parking 872 Amend 3.2.2(L) - Parking Stall Dimensions - to clarify
lots. that such dimensions refer to off-street parking areas,
not on-street.
10 3.4.1(D) Codifies submittal timing of E.C.S. 873 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)- Ecological Characterization Study
- to codify that the E.C.S. has to be submitted 10 days
prior to P.D.P. submittal.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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
provide access. 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.
14 3.8.11(D) Clarifies how to establish grade for measuring fence 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.
15 3.10.1(A)(B) Adds design standards for parking structures in T.O.D. - 895 Amend 3.10.1(A)(B) - Development Standards in the
H-M-N and C-C zones. Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone - so that
the design standards for parking structures would
apply to the H-M-N and C-C zones north of Prospect
Road.
16 4.2(D)(1)(a) Allows the maximum density to work with required 875 Amend 4.2(D)(1)(a) U-E Density/Intensity - to fix the
minimum lot size. glitch between maximum allowable density of two
units per net acre and the minimum required lot size of
one-half acre.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 4
Ord. Section # Code Revision Effect Issue
17 4.2(E)(2)(c) Clarifies that a waiver is not needed for smaller lots within 876 Amend 4.2(E)(2)[c] - U-E Cluster Plan - to improve the
the Cluster Plan. language about the non-applicability of minimum
required lot size within a Cluster Plan.
18 4.6(E) Adds design standards for multi-family buildings in 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).
19 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.
20 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.
21 4.7(D)(3) Requires an affidavit to be recorded 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.
22 4.8(B)(1)(d) Moves the use to a B.D.R. in th 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.
23 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.
24 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.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 4
Ord. Section # Code Revision Effect Issue
25 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.
26 4.9(B)(2)(d) Moves the use out of Type 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 4.27(D)(4)(a) Allows residential buildings to be 4 stories in E. 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.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
Monday, August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 4
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 18, 2011
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Steve Dush
Chair: William Stockover Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Excused Absences Campana and Lingle
Staff Present: Dush, Daggett, Shepard, and Sanchez-Sprague
Agenda Review
Director Dush reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
Joann Kissen of the League of Women Voters of Larimer County is a member of their Observer Corp.
League members volunteer to observe the meetings of various boards and commissions of the county or
the cities of Ft. Collins, Loveland and Berthoud. She plans to be an observer for a few of the Planning &
Zoning Board’s hearings. She knows the Board deals with a number of important community issues and
she said she’s just there to get information she’ll take back to their members.
Chair Stockover asked if the Board was ready to act on the Consent Agenda as proposed.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes for the July 21, 2011 Planning & Zoning Board Hearings
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda which consists of the July 21,
2011 Hearing minutes. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
_______
Project: 2011 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the 2011 annual
update to the Land Use Code. There are two new proposed revisions since the
Board considered the annual update at their meeting in July. The first slightly
revises the order of proceedings at a public hearing by allowing the Chair or
Hearing Officer to determine relevancy of testimony. The second revises the
criteria by which a developer may bring a project to City Council under the pre-
hearing format.
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning & Zoning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 2
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said this is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the
2011 annual update to the Land Use Code. There are two proposed revisions since the Board
considered the annual update at their meeting in July. The first slightly revises the order of proceedings
at a public hearing by allowing the Chair or Hearing Officer to determine relevancy of testimony—that
language is added for consistency. The second revises the criteria by which a developer may bring a
project to City Council under the pre-hearing format. The two proposed revisions will be forwarded into
the larger annual update and taken to City Council on September 6, 2011.
Shepard also referred to a memo dated August 18, 2011 from him regarding changes made to Item
897—the pre-hearing change. It makes the language a little more explanatory and less open-ended. He
referred to the proposed ordinance language and explained the changes for tonight are in all caps with
yellow highlights whereas the changes previously recommended have only yellow highlights.
Member Schmidt asked if there were any changes to the Item 896 from the version they saw at work
session. Shepard said no.
Public Input
None
Board Discussion
Chair Stockover said the Board spent time reviewing the items at their work session and that there had
been good discussion.
Member Schmidt asked about the current process for a pre-hearing application. Shepard said the
application is filed with the City Clerk’s Office with the City Manager reviewing all agendas for City
Council. Schmidt asked if the City Manager will make the determination whether it’s a community wide
need. Shepard said yes.
Member Lingle asked if the ordinance language is coming from the City Attorney’s office or the City
Manager’s office. Shepard said both. Lingle asked if there was a need to determine any criteria for what
a community wide impact is. Shepard said the thinking is by leaving it “as is” would give the proper
amount of discretion needed by the City Manager.
Chair Stockover said there have been only two pre-hearings before City Council to date. Shepard said
that’s correct—North College Marketplace and Riverwalk Annexation. Stockover asked if Council adopts
it and then decided that it could have been too lenient or too hard; could we revisit it in an annual review
of Land Use Code changes. Shepard said yes and added there is also the ability to make a code
change outside the normal annual update process as seen by the Board’s recommendation to adopt
sub-area plans or Plan Fort Collins.
Stockover said what he’s thinking is there is a pretty high level of anxiety that this change might upset the
apple cart and the process that has worked so well to date. On the flip side, however, he said it’s so
rarely used and fills a need. He would be in support knowing that if appropriate, it can be changed. In
fact, he said he would be in support of both items.
Member Smith said with the addition of the language of not allowing for pre-hearing when City Council
might hear an appeal makes sense and he’ll support it.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 18, 2011
Page 3
Member Schmidt said she had some issues when the Board first discussed the public notification that
went with this change. She asked if it is covered where it says all pre-application hearings will be held in
accordance with the provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review
Procedures. Shepard said that would remain the same. Schmidt said initially she understood a notice
would be posted at City Hall. Shepard said it would be more than that—under Section 6 there is a
requirement for mailed notice and posted notice. Schmidt said it appears to be the same notice of any
other hearing. Shepard said correct. Shepard said Steps 7 (B) and (C) relate to conduct of the public
hearing.
Member Schmidt asked if something is going to be of community wide impact how you would determine
the notification area. Dush said it would be related to the project site in accordance with that Section and
the size of the project. Shepard said Step 6 talks about the number of single family detached units,
number of multi-family units, square footage of non-residential and various thresholds. Shepard said if
thresholds are below a certain number than you have an 800 foot notification area. If they’re over
another threshold, you have a 1000 foot notification area. Shepard said the community wide impact
does not refer to notice.
Member Lingle moved for recommendation of approval of the 2011 Annual Revisions,
Clarifications and Addition to the Land Use Code consisting of items 896 and 897 in accordance
with the revised language as stipulated in the memorandum dated August 18, 2011. Member
Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Schmidt asked if it should state as listed in the memo dated August 18 from Chief Planner Ted
Shepard. Director Dush said to make that it clear, it would be a good idea. Members Lingle and
Carpenter agreed and that language was added above.
The motion was approved 5:0.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Steve Dush, CDNS Director Butch Stockover, Chair
ATTACHMENT 7
1
ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the
Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code
and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.6.5(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(B) Where a proposed building is proposed to be enlarged, expanded or added
by more thanaddition exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet or twenty-
five (25) percent of the gross floor area of such building as it existed on
March 27, 1997, whichever results in the least amount of square footage,
the building and the parcel of ground upon which the building is located
shall be brought into compliance with the applicable general development
standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards
contained in Article 4 of this Land Use Code, to the extent reasonably
feasible. Any new structure that is added to said parcel of ground shall
also comply with the applicable general development standards and
district standards referenced above.
Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
. . .
2
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council
regarding complex development proposals? WhenIf an application for
approval of a development plan also entails theCity Council approval of an
annexation petition, or an amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan, or
some other kind of legislativeformal action by the City Council, other than a
possible appeal under this Land Use Code, and if a land development or
renewal project is determined by the City Manager to be of community-
wide impact, the applicant for such approval may request that the City
Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary com-
ments from the City Council regarding the applicant's overall proposal in
order to assist the developer in determining whether to file a development
application or annexation petition. However, if the only legislative action
involved in the proposal is a possible financial partnership with the city or
the provision of some financial incentive to the applicant from the city, the
City Manager must agree that the proposed partnership or financial
incentive warrants Council consideration in order for a hearing before the
Council to be scheduled. All pre-application hearings scheduled by the City
Manager under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review
Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall
be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than
fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting
the hearing, the applicant must advance the city's estimated costs of
providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs
will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing,
members of the City Council may, but shall not be required to, comment on
the proposal. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any
Councilmember with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise
obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision
pertaining to the proposal. Only one (1) such hearing may be requested.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 2.2.2(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2.2.2 Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings
(A) Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development
review process, the city shall require a neighborhood meeting between
citizens of area neighborhoods, applicants and the Director for any
development proposal that is subject to P&Z review unless the Director
determines that the development proposal would not have significant
neighborhood impact. Citizens are urged to attend and actively participate
in these meetings. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is for such
development applications to be presented to citizens of area neighborhoods
and for the citizens to identify, list and discuss issues related to the
3
development proposal. Working jointly with staff and the applicant,
citizens help seek solutions for these issues. Neighborhood meetings are
held during the conceptual planning stage of the proposal so that
neighborhoods may give input on the proposal before time and effort have
been expended by the applicant to submit a formal development application
to the city. At least ten (10) calendar days shall have passed between the
date of the neighborhood meeting and the submittal to the City of the
application for development approval for the project that was the subject of
the neighborhood meeting.
Section 4. That Section 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the proceedings at
the public hearing shall be as follows:
(1) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a narrative and/or
graphic description of the development application. The Director
shall present a Staff Report which includes a written recommendation.
This recommendation shall address each standard required to be
considered by this Land Use Code prior to approval of the
development application.
(2) Applicant Presentation. The applicant shallmay present any relevant
information the applicant deems appropriateinformation in support of
its application, subject to the determination of the Chair as to
relevance. Copies of all writings or other exhibits that the applicant
wishes the decision maker to consider must be submitted to the
Director no less than five (5) working days before the public hearing.
(3) Staff Response to Applicant Presentation. The Director, the City
Attorney and any other City staff member may respond to any
statement made or evidence presented by the applicant.
(4) Public Testimony. Relevant public testimony shall be heardMembers
of the public may comment on the application and present evidence,
subject to the determination of the Chair as to relevance.
(5) Applicant Response. The applicant may respond to any testimony or
evidence presented by the public.
(6) Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response. The
Director, the City Attorney and any other City staff member may
respond to any statement made or evidence presented by the public
testimony or by the applicant's response to any such public testimony.
Section 5. That Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
4
(C) Project Development Plan and Plat. Within a maximum of three (3) years
following the approval of a project development plan, and upon the
expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City
Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must proceed by
obtaining the Director's approval of a final plan for all or part of the project
development plan. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project
development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final
approval) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director
may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing three-year requirement, which
extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall
ever attach to a project development plan. The approval of, or completion of
work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project development plan shall
not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan
which have not received such final plan approval and have not been
completed.
Section 6. That Section 2.2.11(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
(1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved
upon the expiration of any right of appeal of the approval by the decision
maker relating thereto, except that in the event that any such decision of
approval has been appealed, the site specific development plan shall be
deemed approved as of the date of the City's final action with regard to
such appeal.
. . .
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall
development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by
the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn
by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the
subject of another overall development plan or project development plan
application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final
decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan
unless the Director determines that the granting of an exception to this
requirement would not be detrimental to the public good and would: (a)
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-
wide concern; or (b) 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.
5
(910) Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create
any vested property right other than such right as is established pursuant to
the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S. In the event of the repeal of
said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or
unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the
provisions hereof no longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed
to prohibit the waiver of a vested property right pursuant to mutual
agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the
recording of any such agreement with the county Clerk and Recorder, any
property right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to
be not vested.
Section 7. That Section 2.3.2(H)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall comply
with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted
uses and applicable zone district standards (Article 4) of all zone
districts contained within the boundaries of the overall development
plan. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district
standards (Article 4) and general development standards (Article 3)
that can be applied at the level of detail required for an overall
development plan submittal. If the overall development plan contains
any land within the M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall
be consistent with the block size requirements for those districts.
Only one (1) application for an overall development plan for any
specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending for approval at any
given time. Such application shall also be subject to the provisions
for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 2.4.2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply
with all General Development Standards applicable to the development
proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and,
when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved
overall development plan, the project development plan shall be consistent
with the overall development plan. Only one (1) application for a project
development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending
for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the
provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
6
Section 9. That Section 3.2.2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Off-street Pparking areas for automobiles shall
meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of
standard and compact vehicles:
. . .
Section 10. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the
Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The
actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be
proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site
evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological
characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the
map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains,
or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or
if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from
inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life
and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the
developer shall provide to the city an ecological characterization
report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology,
wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10)
working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan
application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive
ecological characterization study of the entire property must be
prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for
review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements
of this requirement if the city already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth
in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as
set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization
study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
. . .
Section 11. That Section 3.4.7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
7
(C) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of individual
eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code. A site, structure
or object may be determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation if it meets one (1) or more of the criteria as described in Section
14-5, "Standards for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts
For Preservation" of the City Code. If a property is determined to be
eligible for designation, the applicant will provide a completed Colorado
Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form for the property.
(Forms are available from the Community Planning and Environmental
Services Department.)
The determination of individual eligibility for the National or State Register
of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the
Colorado Historical Society.
Section 12. That Section 3.5.1(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual
character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions
are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the
development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve
compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this
Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors, buffer yards and
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation,
lighting, placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions.
Section 13. That Section 3.6.2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(L) Private Drives and Street-like Private Drives.
(1) When Allowed.
(a) Internal access or additional cross-access. Private drives shall
be allowed in a development, provided that their function will
only be to provide access to property within the development or
additional cross-access between developments that are also
connected by a street(s). Private drives shall not be permitted if
(by plan or circumstance) such drives would, in the judgment of
the City Engineer, attract "through traffic" in such volumes as to
render such drives necessary as connections between
developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations
outside of the development plan. A private drive shall not be
permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other
provisions of this Land Use Code.
8
(b) Primary access in single-family developments. A private drive,
instead of a street, shall be allowed to provide primary access to
residential development, provided that the drive is connected to
only one (1) streetin compliance with paragraph (a) above.
(c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be
allowed as primary access to facing buildings or to parcels
internal to a larger, cohesive development plan, or for the
purposes of meeting other requirements for streets. Street-like
private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street
parking, tree-lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s), and
crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped
medians, corner plazas and pedestrian lighting may be provided
to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the context of
the development plan.
On-street parking for abutting buildings may be parallel or
angled. Head-in parking may only be used in isolated parking
situations.
Such street-like private drives must be similar to public or
private streets in overall function and buildings shall front on
and offer primary orientation to the street-like private drive.
Street-like private drives may be used in conjunction with other
standards, such as block configuration, orientation to connecting
walkways, build-to-lines, or street pattern and connectivity.
(d) Neither a private drive nor a street-like private drive shall be
permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other
provisions of this Land Use Code.
(2) Design Requirements. Private drives shall be designed to meet the
following criteria:
(a) If any property served by the private drive cannot receive fire
emergency service from a public street, then all emergency
access design requirements shall apply to the private drive in
accordance with Section 3.6.6. An "emergency access
easement" must be dedicated to the city for private drives that
provide emergency access.
(b) Private drives which must comply with Section 3.6.6 for
emergency access shall be limited to an overall length of six
hundred sixty (660) feet from a single point of access (measured
as the fire hose would lay). This measurement shall begin at the
intersection of the private drive with the public or private street.
9
. . .
Section 14. That Section 3.8.11(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) For the purposes of this Section, the height of a fence or wall shall be the
distance from the top of the fence or wall to the original finished grade of
the lot directly under the fence or wall as such grade existed at the time the
fence or wall was constructed. Any berm, wall or similar feature that is
constructed for the purpose of increasing the height of a fence or wall shall
be considered to be a part of the fence or wall.
Section 15. That Section 3.10.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.10.1 Applicability and Purpose
(A) Applicability. These standards apply to applications for development
within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road and
provided further that the provisions contained in Section 3.4.10(D)
regarding parking structure design shall also apply to the H-M-N, High
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and the C-C, Community Commercial
zone districts throughout the City.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone
districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and
design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor.
These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient
walking distance of transit stations; encourage the creation of stable and
attractive residential and commercial environments within the TOD
Overlay Zone south of Prospect Road; and provide for a desirable
transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the
event of a conflict between the provisions contained in this Division and
the provisions contained in Article 4, this Division shall control. The
purpose of this Section is also to apply the standards contained in Section
3.4.10(D) regarding parking structure design to all land within the City
that is located in the H-M-N, High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and
the C-C, Community Commercial zone districts.
Section 16. That Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity. All development shall meet the following require-
ments:
10
(a) Overall average density shall not exceed two (2) dwelling units
per netgross acre.
. . .
Section 17. That Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(c) Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning
Board,do not apply provided that the overall average density of
the proposed development does not exceed two (2) dwelling
units per gross acre and the density of the cluster development
does not exceed five (5) dwelling units per net acre.
Section 18. That Section 4.6(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subsection (3) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(3) Design standards for multi-family dwellings.
(a) Orientation and setbacks. Setbacks from the property
line of abutting property containing single- and two-family
dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
(b) Variation among repeated buildings. For any
development containing at least five (5) and not more than
seven (7) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices),
there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building
designs. For any such development containing more than
seven (7) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices),
there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building
designs. For all developments, there shall be no more than
two (2) similar buildings placed next to each other along a
street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine.
Buildings shall be considered similar unless they vary
significantly in footprint size and shape, architectural
evaluations and entrance features, within a coordinated
overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other
characteristics. To meet this standard, such variation shall
not consist solely of different combinations of the same
building features.
(c) Variation of color. Each multi-family building shall
feature a palette of muted colors, earth tone colors, natural
colors found in surrounding landscape or colors consistent
with the adjacent neighborhood. For a multiple structure
development containing at least forty (40) and not more
than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least two
11
(2) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the
development. For any such development containing more
than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least
three (3) distinct color schemes used on structures
throughout the development. For all developments, there
shall be no more than two (2) similarly colored structures
placed next to each other along a street or major walkway
spine.
(d) Entrances. Entrances shall be made clearly visible from
the streets and public areas through the use of architectural
elements and landscaping.
(e) Roofs. Roof lines may be either sloped, flat or curved, but
must include at least two (2) of the following elements:
1. The primary roof line shall be articulated through a
variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or
change in massing.
2. Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances,
porches, garages, dormers, towers or other
architectural projections.
3. Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two
(2) feet in the vertical plane.
4. Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be
articulated by design details and/or changes in
materials and color.
5. Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by
incorporating equipment screens of compatible
design and materials.
(f) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be
articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways,
balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar
features, dividing large facades and walls into human-
scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two-
family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive,
undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be
articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that
break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Façade
articulation may be accomplished by offsetting the floor
plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change in
12
materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections
shall fall within setback requirements.
(g) Colors and materials. Colors of non-masonry materials
shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate
between buildings and provide variety and individuality.
Colors and materials shall be integrated to visually reduce
the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim, by
contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or
architectural element from another. Bright colors, if used,
shall be reserved for accent and trim.
Section 19. That Section 4.7(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
23. Accessory uses.
Section 20. That Section 4.7(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety as follows:
(c) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
Section 21. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable
Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be
considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an
intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any person
applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record
with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such
accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable
building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located
13
behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor
space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor
area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-
half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the
rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
. . .
Section 22. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
23. Accessory uses.
Section 23. That Section 4.8(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety as follows:
(c) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
Section 24. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person
applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record
with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that
such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All
building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory
building to contain habitable space. Any such structure containing
habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building
shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of floor area.
Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground
14
floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory
building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided
that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
. . .
Section 25. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
23. Accessory uses.
Section 26. That Section 4.9(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety as follows:
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings with declared habitable space, or with
water and/or sewer connections.
Section 27. That Section 4.9(D)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building
shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a
dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be
conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing
habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of
floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the
rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
15
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
Section 28. That the graphic contained Section 4.16(D)(2)(c) of the Land Use
Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the new graphic below:
Figure 18.6
Measurement of Height Limits
Section 29. That the graphic contained in Section 4.16(D)(4)(b)2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the new graphic below:
16
Massing, ground floor setbacks, and upper-floor setbacks shall be compatible with
the historical and pedestrian character of Downtown, shading, views and privacy.
Section 30. That Section 4.27(D)(4)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
17
. . .
(4) Dimensional Standards.
(a) Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including
those containing mixed-use dwelling units, shall be four (4)
stories. Maximum height for residential buildings shall be three
(3) stories.
. . .
Section 31. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Development shall mean the carrying out of any building activity or mining
operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any
structure or land, or, except as is authorized in Section 1.4.7, the dividing of land
into two (2) or more parcels.
. . .
(2) Development shall not include:
(a) work by the City, or by the Downtown Development Authority
(if within the jurisdictional boundary of the Downtown
Development Authority and if such work has been agreed upon
in writing by the City and the Authority), or work by a highway
or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or
improvement of a road or railroad track, if the work is carried
out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way, or on
land adjacent to the right-of-way if such work is incidental to a
project within the right-of-way;
. . .
Section 32. That the definition “Private drive” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Private drive shall mean a parcel of land not dedicated as a public street, over
which a private easement for road purposes has been granted to the owners of
property adjacent thereto, which intersects or connects with a public or private
street, and where the instrument creating such easement has been recorded in the
Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. A street-like private drive is
a type of private drive that may be used instead of a street under the provisions of
Section 3.6.2(L)(c).
Section 33. That the definition “Private street” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18
Private street shall mean a parcel of land not dedicated as a public street, over
which a public access easement for street purposes has been granted to the city,
which intersects or connects with only one (1) other street, public or private, and
where the instrument creating such easement has been recorded or filed in the
Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. The public access easement
shall allow for access by police, emergency vehicles, trash collection and other
service vehicles, utility owners and the public in general.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th
day of August, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk