HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/01/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FORT DATE: March 1, 2011
STAFF: Joe Frank, Timothy Wilder, -
Pete Wray
Items Relating to the Implementation of Plan Fort Collins, Including Amendments to Three Subarea Plans and the
Land Use Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No,036,2011,Making Amendments to the Land Use Code Implementing Policies
of the 2010 Update of City Plan.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the Name of the
"Commercial District (C)" to"General Commercial District(C-G)."
C. Resolution 2011-023 Amending the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and
the Northwest Subarea Plan to Comport with the 2010 Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan Known as
"Plan Fort Collins".
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resolution and Ordinances implement amendments to three subarea plans and the Land Use Code related to
adoption of the update to City Plan.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications. The current proposed changes result from the recent
update to City Plan, which identifies specific amendments to the Land Use Code to be implemented concurrent with
the adoption of City Plan. The proposed changes are listed in City Plan as follows:
Land Use Code Amendments
Neighborhoods and Housing
• Amend Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (L-M-N) requirements regarding: (1) mix of housing; (2)
density requirements; and (3) neighborhood convenience centers (building footprints for retail and offices).
• Eliminate Infill Area and retain flexible density for smaller projects.
Community Appearance and Design and Others
• Establish gateway standards for the 1-25/392 Interchange (as part of the interchange project).
• Change all references in the Land Use Code and the Zoning Map from Commercial to"General Commercial"
to improve clarity and match zoning map text.
These items are more fully described in Attachment 1 -List of Land Use Code Issues and Attachment 2-1-25/SH 392
Interchange Project-Corridor Activity Center- Proposed Gateway Standards.
The Resolution, providing revisions to three subarea plans, is directly related to the proposed amendments to the L-M-
N density standards. Changes are needed to ensure that L-M-N density numbers in these subarea plans are
consistent with City Plan and the Land Use Code. These changes are more fully described in Attachment 3-Subarea
Plan Amendment Report.
i
March 1, 2011 -2- ITEM 29
City Council has held two work sessions regarding the amendments, the first on December 14, 2010 and the second
on February 8,2011. At these work sessions,Council asked questions and provided policy direction (See Attachment
4). A follow-up memo was provided with responses to several questions that could not be answered during the
February Work Session.
Since the February 8, 2011 Work Session, staff made one change to the Land Use Code amendments:
Amend 3.9.12 Corridor Activity Center Design Standards (Draft Ordinance page 2 and Land Use
Code Item#866). The Code revision has been changed to establish a maximum building height of
90 feet, rather than 6 1/2 stories or 90 feet. The purpose of this change is to provide a simpler and
clearer numeric building height standard.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts to the City as a result of these amendments. The proposed amendments
represent a follow up implementation action with the City Plan update, and the Plan addresses the tenets of
sustainability—economic, environmental and human.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
' There are no direct environmental impacts as a result of these amendments. The proposed amendments represent
a follow up implementation action with the City Plan update, and the Plan addresses the tenets of sustainability—
economic, environmental and human
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances and the Resolution.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 20, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on Plan Fort Collins. The Board
passed two motions related to the Ordinance and Resolution which are summarized as follows:
1. Recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Concurrent Implementation Action Amendments to
the Subarea Plans with the exception of any reference to expanding the density to three(3)dwelling units per
acre in the Urban Estate (U-E). The motion was approved 5-0.
2. Recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of Land Use Code amendments 855 through 867
(excluding 853 and 854, i.e.,the proposed changes to the allowable density in the U-E Zone).The motion was
approved 5-0.
Draft minutes from the January 20, 2011, Planning and Zoning Board meeting can be found in Attachment 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public involvement consisted of the following:
• Public meetings, including a focused open house on February 16, 2011, and more general Plan Fort Collins
events on October 12, 2010, and December 13, 2010.
• Direct mail and presentations to affected interests.
• Plan Fort Collins newsletter announcement.
• Website information.
• Planning and Zoning Board hearing on January 20, 2011.
March 1, 2011 1 -3- ITEM 29
To date, staff has received a few comments on the proposed amendments, all in favor. The recent open house on
February 16 was attended by approximately ten people and all supported the proposed changes. Announcements
for the meeting were made to the Plan Fort Collins mailing lists and other affected interests, consisting of over 1,000
people.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. 1-25/SH 392 Interchange Project-Corridor Activity Center-Proposed Gateway Standards Overview(January
10, 2011)
3. City Council Work Session Summaries, December 14, 2010 and February 8, 2011
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, January 20, 2011
5. PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 1
Land Use Code Issues
Thursday,February 17,2011
Issue ID# Issue Name
855 Amend 4.5(B)(2)[c]3.L-M-N Type 1 Neighborhood Center-to move the maximum allowable building
footprint area of 5,000 sq. ft.for retail stores,offices,banks and clinics from the permitted use list to a
standard.
856 Amend 4.5(D)(1(a)L-M-N Density-to lower the minimum allowable density from 5 to 4 d.u./net acre,to
delete the reference to Infill Area and to raise the minimum density on less than 20 acres from no minimum
requirement to 3 du./net acre city-wide.
857 Amend 4.5(D)(1)(b)-L-M-N Density-to raise the maximum allowable density from 8 to 9 d.u./gross acre.
858 Amend 4.5(D)(2)(a)-L-M-N Mix of Housing-to revise and add to the list of housing types beginning with
parcels at 20(versus 30)acres needing 3 (versus 2)types,and parcels at 30(versus 45)acres needing 4(versus
3)housing types.
859 Amend 4.5(D)(2)(b)-L-M-N Mix of Housing-to revise/add allowable housing types to include lots with rear-
loaded garages and lots with less than 4,000 sq.ft. or 40 feet or less street frontage,but with 2,000 sq.ft.
difference between lot types.
860 Amend 4.5(D)(2)[c]-LMN Mix of Housing-to reduce to 80%(versus 90%)the maximum allowable for any
single housing type,and to set a new floor of 5%for any single housing type.
861 Amend 4.5(D)(3)-LMN Neighborhood Centers-to add back in the maximum building footprint of 5,000
square feet,the maximum size of 5 acres,as standards versus permitted uses.
862 Amend 4.6(D)(1)-MMN Density-to delete the reference to Infll Area so that all areas shall have a required
minimum required density of 7 d.u./net acre city-wide.
863 Amend 4.21 -Commercial District-to rename the title of the district to General Commercial in all instances.
864 Amend 4.2l(B)(1,2,3)-General Commercial District-Permitted Uses-to carve out a separate geographic
area around the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange,establish permitted uses,and all uses in the entire C-G zone to be
listed in a new table format.
865 Amend 3.9-Standards for 1-25 Corridor-to amend the applicability statement to clarify the distinction for the
new I-25/Hwy 392 Corridor Activity Center.
866 Amend 3.9-Standards for I-25 Corridor-to add four new standards that will be matched by Windsor to
promote unified,cohesive development on both sides of the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange.
867 Amend 5.1.2-Definitions-to delete the Infill Map.
868 Amend 3.6.1 -Establishment of Master Street Plan-to change effective date to February 15,2011 to reflect
the changes made to implement Plan Fort Collins.
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 1 of I
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
855 Amend 4.5(B)(2)[c]3.L-M-N Type 1 Neighborhood Center-to move the maximum
allowable building footprint area of 5,000 sq.ft.for retail stores,offices,banks and clinics
from the permitted use list to a standard.
Problem Statement
The L M-N Neighborhood Center is a permitted land use that attempts to diversify
residential areas with non-residential land uses. The Neighborhood Center is permitted as
both a Type One and Type Two with the latter including slightly more intensive land
uses. The list of allowable uses within a Neighborhood Center has been selected as
neighborhood-serving businesses that would capture an otherwise longer trip on the
arterial system to larger centers. The problem is that the market has not beaten a path to
the L-M-N. The targeted uses have indicated they need arterial-level street traffic for
exposure and trade. Since 1997,the City has not gained a viable horizontal or vertical
mixed-use neighborhood center that truly supports the vision of City Plan.
The Type One L-M-N Neighborhood Center presently contains a requirement that non-
residential land uses such as retail stores,offices,financial services and clinics be located
within building footprints that do not exceed 5,000 square feet. Since this metric is
included in the permitted use list,it is not eligible for a Modification of Standard. The
Land Use Code would be more flexible if this prescription were simply moved into the
Land Use Standards of the zone versus the permitted use list. Otherwise,any divergence
would require a Rezoning,Text Amendment or Addition of a Permitted Use.
The proposed revision will not change the original language but simply moves the
provision to a standard that is eligible for a Modification. This will allow greater
flexibility when designing a neighborhood center and provide an assessment tool in
evaluating centers that may be larger or arranged in a creative mix of buildings.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to provide a measure of flexibility and to encourage a broader mix of uses in L-
M-N areas,the 5,000 square foot maximum building footprint for Type One
neighborhood center should be moved into the Land Use Standards. And,by being so
moved,the standard would also apply to the Type Two Neighborhood Center.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 4.5(B)(2)[c]3 Removes the 5,000 sci t.building footprint maximum from
permitted use list
856 Amend 4.5(D5(1(a)L-M-N Density-to lower the minimum allowable density from 5 to 4
d.u./net acre,to delete the reference to Infill Area and to raise the minimum density on less
than 20 acres from no minimum requirement to 3 d.u./net acre city-wide.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that several recently-developed L-M-N projects have technically
complied with the Land Use Code requirements but do not appear to meet the intent of
City Plan in regards to a mix of lot sizes and housing types. These projects generally
provide a small amount of attached housing and a minor variation in lot sizes. They do
not provide a significant diversity of lot sizes and housing choice as envisioned in City
Thursday,February 17,201 l Page 1 of 9
Plan and appear fairly monotonous.
In addition,one of the concerns brought up before and during the Plan Fort Collins
process is the lack of larger lots(lots between 7,500—10,500 square feet)in new
subdivisions. Approximately eleven percent(11%)of the new single-family detached
dwelling lots of this size has been platted under City Plan.
Also,there is a concern about the current exemption from meeting any minimum density
requirement on parcels less than 20 acres and located within the Infill Area.
The Infill Area is defined by a map. The original purpose of the Infill Area was to
provide development flexibility to smaller parcels where they are well-served by facilities
and services and where compatibility of existing development was important. However,
as the Growth Management Area has built out,and as facilities and services have
expanded,the Infill Area has remained the same. The Infill Area may no longer serve its
original purpose.
Staff recommends removing the Infill Area map but retaining the provision that allows
projects twenty acres or less to meet a lower minimum density standard;and,establishing
a minimum density of three(3)dwelling units per acre for properties zoned L-M-N.
The overall impact on the development capacity would be relatively minor. Typically
parcels in the Infill Area develop at the higher range of the density requirements. For
example,two recent L-M-N infill projects on the south side of East Prospect Road contain
the following densities:Pinnacle Townhomes—7.86 d.u./acre and New Prospect—6.5
d.u./acre.
If all of the potentially developable parcels developed at the lower range of the density
requirements,then there could be approximately 387 fewer housing units in the L-M-N
zone district and 409 fewer housing units in the M-M-N zone district. However,the
change would add considerable flexibility in situations where compatibility with existing
.development was important.
Proposed Solution Overview
One of the proposed solutions to relieving monotony in the larger-scaled project is to
widen the range of allowable density at both the low and high end. This revision would
address the low end by allowing the overall minimum required density to be reduced
from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per net acre of residential land. This would work in
conjunction with another revision that would raise the maximum allowable density from
8.0 to 9:0 per gross acre of residential land. This revision is intended to offer a wider
choice of housing and create more interesting L M-N neighborhoods.
With regard to the exemption from meeting any minimum required density for areas
defined as less than 20 acres and being located within the Infill Area,the proposed
solution is to eliminate the Infill Area map and set a new required minimum of 3.00
d.u./acre city-wide.
These changes are intended to work in tandem with the revisions to the mix of housing
types described in items#857,#858,#859 and#860.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Cade Cite Revision Effect
6 4.5(D)(1)(a) Lowers the minimum required density from 5 to 4 d.u./net
acre,eliminates Infill Map,adds 3 d.u./net acre as
minimum on parcels less than 20 acres city-wide..
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 2 of 9
857 Amend 4.5(D)(1)(b)-L-M-N Density-to raise the maximum allowable density from 8 to 9
d.u./gross acre.
Problem Statement
As with the immediately preceding revision,there continues to be a concern that several
recently-developed L-M-N projects have technically complied with the Land Use Code
requirements but do not appear to meet the intent of City Plan in regards to a mix of lot
sizes and housing types. These projects generally provide a small amount of attached
housing and a minor variation in lot sizes. They do not provide a significant diversity of
lot sizes and housing choice as envisioned in City Plan and appear fairly monotonous.
In addition,one of the concerns brought up before and during the Plan Fort Collins
process is the lack of larger lots(lots between 7,500—10,500 square feet)in new
subdivisions. Approximately eleven percent(11%)of the new single-family detached
dwelling lots of this size has been platted under City Plan.
Proposed Solution Overview
One of the proposed solutions to relieving monotony in the larger-scaled project is to
widen the range of allowable density at both the low and high end. This revision would
address the high end by allowing the overall maximum allowable required density to be
increased from 8.0 to 9.0 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. This would
work in conjunction with another revision that would lower the minimum required
density from 5.0 to 4.0 per net acre of residential land. This revision is intended to offer
a wider choice of housing and create more interesting L-M-N neighborhoods.
Related Code Revisions
(2rd.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 4.5(1))(1)(b) Raises the maximum allowable density from 8 to 9
d.u./grass acre.
858 Amend 4.5(D)(2)(a)-L-M-N Mix of Housing-to revise and add to the list of housing types
beginning with parcels at 20(versus 30)acres needing 3 (versus 2)types,and parcels at 30
(versus 45)acres needing 4(versus 3)housing types.
Problem Statement
As with the two preceding revisions,there continues to be a concern that several recently-
developed L-M-N projects have technically complied with the Land Use Code
requirements but do not appear to meet the intent of City Plan in regards to a mix of lot
sizes and housing types. These projects generally provide a small amount of attached
housing and a minor variation in lot sizes. They do not provide a significant diversity of
lot sizes and housing choice as envisioned in City Plan and appear fairly monotonous.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution to relieving monotony in larger-scaled projects is to adjust the
ratio of housing mix-to-acreage. The change would reduce the acreage levels at which
point the housing mix must be provided. In addition,there would be one more housing
type required at each acreage level.
This change would work in conjunction with the other two revisions that would widen
the range of allowable density at both the low and high end. The intention is to offer a
wider choice of housing and create more interesting L-M-N neighborhoods.
Parcels containing 20 acres or more(versus 30)would be required to provide three
(versus two)housing types.
Parcels containing 30 acres or more(versus 45)would be required to provide four
(versus three)housing types.
Thursday,February 17,2011 - Page 3 of 9
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Errect
6 4.5(D)(2)(a) Creates a greater diversity of housing types at lower
acreage thresholds.
859 Amend 4.5(1))(2)(b)-L-M-N Mix of Housing-to revise/add allowable housing types to
include lots with rear-loaded garages and lots with less than 4,000 sq.ft.or 40 feet or less
street frontage,but with 2,000 sq.ft.difference between lot types.
Problem Statement
Within the L-M-N zone,there is a list of housing types that can be selected in any
combination to comply with the housing mix requirement. As with the preceding
revisions to the L-M-N zone,there is a concern that larger-scale residential projects do
not provide a level of diversity in housing choice as originally envisioned under City
Plan. Presently,the list does not include single family detached dwellings with rear
loaded garages that take access off either a public alley or a private drive. Nor does the
list address lot width.
In addition,the intention of establishing a distinct housing type for the small lot,defined
as 4,000 square feet or less,is not as precise as it could be. Finally,the multi-family
dwelling,an existing allowable housing type,contains an error that states the maximum
number of units per building is eight when in fact,up to 12 units per building are allowed.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff has found that the rear loaded garage creates a distinctive neighborhood character.
By removing the garage from the street,streets are not dominated by two-car garages,
driveways and parked vehicles. Also,additional space can be devoted to front porches
or simply wider homes with living space and windows fronting on the street instead of
being tucked behind the garage. 'These attributes clearly warrant the status of being its
own individual housing type.
Selecting a small lot as distinct housing type has been broadened and can be done by
either square footage(less than 4,000 square feet)or by linear front footage along a street
(40 feet or less)as long as there is a 2,000 square foot differential with the larger lots.
Clarifying that the multi-family project may contain up to 12 units per building simply
corrects an oversight.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision F.frect
6 4.5(D)(2)(b) Adds a new housing type,clarifies lot size difference,
corrects number of units in a multi-family building.
860 Amend 4.5(D)(2)[c]-LMN Mix of Housing-to reduce to 80%(versus 90%)the maximum
allowable for any single housing type, and to set a new floor of 5%for any single housing
type.
Problem Statement
In the L-M-N,the current maximum for a single housing type is 90%of the total number
of dwelling units. As mentioned in the preceding L-M-N revisions,there is a concern
about the overall monotony of newly developed subdivisions.This 90%is considered too
high and results in one single housing type dominating the neighborhood character.
This standard also contains a provision that if single family detached dwellings are the
only housing types included in the mix,then the difference between the two shall be at
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 4 of 9
least 2,000 square feet. The problem is that a project may come in with not only two
single family detached housing types(large lot and small lot)but with other allowable
housing types such as single family attached(townhomes)or two-family dwellings
(duplexes)or multi-family(begins with tri-plex). The project,therefore,would be
relieved of having to provide the 2,000 square foot differential between the two types of
single family detached dwellings. The difference between the small lot and large lot
housing then becomes indistinguishable and this was not the original intent of this
standard.
Finally,the problem with this standard as written is that there is no set minimum
requirement for any of the allowable housing types. This has led to token minimums be
offered as part of the housing mix.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to lower the maximum number of a single housing type to 80%.
The provision regarding the 2,000 square foot differential between single family
detached dwellings is deleted from this section. Instead,this differential is captured in
the previous revision where it has more effectiveness.
Finally,the required minimum for any housing type is set at 5%of the total number of
dwelling units.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Ellett
6 4.5(D)(2)[c) Lowers the maximum percentage of any one housing type,
sets a new minimum for any one housing type.
861 Amend 4.5(D)(3)-LMN Neighborhood Centers-to add back in the maximum building
footprint of 5,000 square feet,the maximum size of 5 acres,as standards versus permitted
uses.
Problem Statement
This revision works in concert with Item 855 which moves the 5,000 square foot
maximum building footprint for retail stores,offices,financial services and clinics in a
Type One L-M-N Neighborhood Center out of the permitted use list. This change inserts
this provision into Land Use Standards. This metric is more logically associated with a
development standard versus a permitted use. As mentioned in Item 855,if this metric
remains within a permitted use,it cannot be modified. Any divergence would have to be
processed as a Rezoning,Text Amendment or Addition of a Permitted Use.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to place this prescriptive metric into a section along with other
development standards that relate to the form of L-M-N neighborhood centers.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision F,llecl
6 4.5(D)(3) Moves the 5,000 sq.ft.maximum building footprint from
permitted use to a standard.
862 Amend 4.6(D)(1)-MMN Density-to delete the reference to Infill Area so that all areas shall
have a required minimum required density of 7 d.u./net acre city-wide.
Problem Statement
Presently,M-M-N projects of 20 acres or less in the Infill Area must meet a minimum
density of seven dwelling units per acre rather than a minimum overall average density of
- twelve(12)dwelling units per acre.
Thursday,February 17,2011 / Page 5 of 9
The Infill Area is defined by a map. The original purpose of the Infill Area was to
provide development flexibility to smaller parcels where they are well-served by facilities
and services and where compatibility of existing development was important. However,
as the Growth Management Area has built out,and as facilities and services have
expanded,the Infill Area has remained the same. The Infill Area may no longer serve its
original purpose.
Staff recommends removing the Infill Area map but retaining the provision that allows
projects of twenty acres or less to meet a lower minimum density standard;and,
establishing a minimum density of 7.00 dwelling units per acre for properties zoned M-M-
N.
The overall impact on the development capacity would be relatively minor. Typically
parcels in the Infill Area develop at the higher range of the density requirements. _
If all of the potentially developable parcels developed at the lower range of the density
requirements,then there could be approximately 387 fewer housing units in the L-M-N
zone district and 409 fewer housing units in the M-M-N zone district. However,the
change would add considerable flexibility in situations where compatibility with existing
development was important.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to eliminate the Infill Area map and set a new required
minimum of 7.00 d.u./acre on parcels that are 20 acres or less city-wide.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 4.6(D)(1) Eliminates the Infill Map,minimum required density on
parcels 20 acres or less to be 7 d.u.lnet acre city-wide.
863 Amend 4.21 -Commercial District-to rename the title of the district to General Commercial
in all instances.
Problem Statement
During the review and restructuring of the commercial districts section of City Plan,staff
realized that there were policies for"All Commercial Districts,""Community Commercial
Districts"and"Neighborhood Commercial Districts,"but no specific policies related to
the basic"Commercial District". The term referring to the zone"Commercial Districf'is
confusing with these other types of commercial districts as described in other City Plan
documents. It is preferable,therefore,to distinguish in name with the term,"General
Commercial District(C-G)". Many other communities use the term"General
Commercial"for similar types of zone districts.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to rename the"Commercial"zone district to"General Commercial"in all
instances.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 4.21 Re-names the zone from Commercial General Commercial
864 Amend 4.21(B)(1,2,3)-General Commercial District-Permitted Uses-to carve out a
separate geographic area around the 1-25/Hwy 392 interchange,establish permitted uses,and
all uses in the entire C-G zone to be listed in a new table format.
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 6 of 9
Problem Statement
As part of the I-25/Hwy 392 Interchange reconstruction project,the Fort Collins City
Council and the Windsor Town Board have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
to identify new land uses and design standards to be applied in the Corridor Activity
Center(CAC). This is the area surrounding the Interchange.This CAC is identified as a
gateway for both Fort Collins and Windsor. The purpose of the new gateway standards is
to supplement existing commercial standards of both jurisdictions and raise the bar in
design quality of this highly visible gateway. The selected allowable land uses are not as
broad as found in the Commercial zone and are intended to support intensive,mixed-use
commercial projects,without impeding potential new development near the Interchange.
Through a joint planning effort,both communities have crafted a consistent set of land
use regulations to create a cohesive development pattern that serves as attractive gateways
into the two cities. The intent is to establish rough equivalency between the two
development codes.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to carve out a geographic specific area on the west side of the
interstate and designate it as the Corridor Activity Center. This area would be a sub-
district of the General Commercial(C-G)zone. This further refinement of the zone
would offer a more restrictive list of permitted uses. The sub-district format is similar to
the sub-districts found in the L-M-14,D,and C-L zones. The C-G zone would include a
cross-reference for properties located in the C.A.C. that indicate specific design
standards are found in Section 3.9.12 of the Land Use Code—Development Standards
for the I-25 Corridor.
The permitted uses allowed in the C.A.C.sub-district will be more restrictive than the
otherwise allowed in the General Commercial District such as along South College
Avenue. This recognizes the high value placed on such a prominent location. Finally,
the permitted uses in Section 4.21(B)(1)would be reformatted into a table readability.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Clte Revision Effect
8 4.21(B)(1) Creates a subdistrict in C zone on west side of 1-25/Hwy
392 interchange with a specific list of permitted uses.
9 4.21(H) Adds a new cross-reference in 4.21 to standards in 3.9.12.
865 Amend 3.9-Standards for 1-25 Corridor-to amend the applicability statement to clarify the
distinction for the new I-25/Hwy 392 Corridor Activity Center.
Problem Statement
Section 3.9 is titled Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor and was adopted as part
of the I-25 Subarea Plan. The City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor have
collaborated on creating a Corridor Activity Center(C.A.C.)for the area around the I-25/
State Highway 392 interchange. This area west of the interstate will be carved out into a
subdistrict and placed into the General Commercial zone. The C.A.C.is being created to
include a limited set of permitted uses and specific design standards. The permitted uses
will be placed into Section 4.21 and the design standards will be placed into Section
3.9.12.The applicability and purpose statement need to be revised to recognize the
distinction between the C.A.C. and the balance of the I-25 Subarea.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to revise and clarify the Applicability statement.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 7 of 9
3 3.9.1(A) Revises and clarifies the Applicability statement.
866 Amend 3.9-Standards for I-25 Corridor-to add four new standards that will be matched by
Windsor to promote unified,cohesive development on both sides of the I-25/Hwy 392
interchange.
Problem Statement
Section 3.9 will be enhanced with four new standards to implement the joint vision
between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor for the area'around the I-25/
Hwy 392 interchange. These design standards for the Corridor Activity Center have been
evaluated for consistency with the Town of Windsor to ensure that there is an equivalency
so the that two municipalities cannot be played off against each other. The new standards
reflect the importance to creating attractive development that is consistent throughout the
C.A.C.with a level of quality that is worthy of this prominent gateway.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to adopt four new standards:
1.Minimum Level of Masonry
This standard would require a masonry product on any elevation that is visible from a
public right-of-way from grade to the top of the entry feature,or to a height that would be
equivalent to the top of the first floor if there is no entry feature on any particular
elevation. Masonry would be defined as natural stone,synthetic stone,brick,and
concrete masonry units that are textured or split face. The effect of such a standard is to
prohibit a potpourri of miscellaneous materials such as synthetic stucco(E.I.F.S.),
smooth-face block or tilt-up concrete with applied texturing.
2.Roofs
This standard would apply to any building that would be less than 25,000 square feet,
and having three stories or less,as any larger building would be governed by the existing
and sufficient big box standards. This standard would require a roof pitch versus a flat
roof. In cases where mechanical equipment must be mounted on the roof,a sloping
mansard would satisfy the standard.
In Fort Collins,this standard is in effect in the Timberline Center,the commercial
development on Timberline Road directly north of Police Services. The result is that the
first two projects that have so far been constructed,self-storage and drive-through
restaurant,feature an upgraded design that would have otherwise not been provided. In
Windsor,this standard is in effect in Water Valley. The intent is to create a distinctive
character for the area that establishes a level of quality for the gateway to the two cities.
3.Commercial Building Height
This standard would establish a maximum building height of 90 feet. This is an increase
over the 4-story maximum height for the G-C zone outside the C.A.C. This new height
maximum would allow more flexibility in supporting more intensive commercial uses
such as mid-size office and hotel development.
4.Commercial Sign Standard
The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor have collaborated on a unified
standard for signage in the C.A.C. Pole signs will be prohibited. The maximum heights
will match. Along I-25,maximum height will be 14 feet. Along internal streets,the
maximum height will be 12 feet. All other parameters of the City's Sign Code will
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 8 of 9
prevail.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 3.9.12(A-D) Adds four new standards to the 1-25/Hwy 392 C.A.C.
867 Amend 5.1.2-Definitions-to delete the Infill Map.
Problem Statement
This change is in conjunction with the proposed revisions establishing the minimum
required density in the L-M-N and M-M-N for parcels of 20 acres or less. The overall
purpose is to establish these minimums on a city-wide basis and not restrict such
provisions to a specific.geographically defined area. Based on these considerations,the
Infill Map is no longer needed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to eliminate the Infill Area map and any references to the map
in all instances.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 5.1.2 Deletes the Infill Map.
868 Amend 3.6.1 -Establishment.of Master Street Plan-to change effective date to February 15,
2011 to reflect the changes made to implement Plan Fort Collins.
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.1(A)establishes that the City's Master Street Plan(M.S.P.)governs the
general location and functional classification of necessary arterial and collector streets
and other transportation facilities. Since the M.S.P.is adopted separately from the Land
Use Code,and is periodically updated,an effective date of the M.S.P.is needed to direct
users to the most current edition. Plan Fort Collins is bringing forward various revisions
to the M.S.P.to be adopted by City Council on February 15,2011 so the effective date
needs to be changed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to change the effective date from August 26, 1996 to February 15,2011.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 3.6.1(A) Changes effective date of M.S.P.
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 9 of 9
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section# Code Cit Revision Effect Issue
1 4.21 Re-names the zone from Commercial General Commercial 863 Amend 4.21-Commercial District-to rename the title
of the district to General Commercial in all instances.
2 3.6.1(A) Changes effective date of M.S.P. 868 Amend 3.6.1-Establishment of Master Street Plan-to
change effective date to February 15,2011 to reflect
the changes made to implement Plan Fort Collins.
3 3.9.1(A) Revises and clarifies the Applicability statement. 865 Amend 3.9-Standards for 1-25 Corridor-to amend
the applicability statement to clarify the distinction for
the new I-25/Hwy 392 Corridor Activity Center.
4 3.9.12(A-D) Adds four new standards to the I-251Hwy 392 C.A.C. 866 Amend 3.9-Standards for I-25 Corridor-to add four
new standards that will be matched by Windsor to
promote unified,cohesive development on both sides
of the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange.
5 4.5(B)(2)[c]3 Removes the 5,000 sq.ft.building footprint maximum 855 Amend 4.5(B)(2)[c]3.LM-N Type 1 Neighborhood
from permitted use list. Center-to move the maximum allowable building
footprint area of 5,000 sq.ft.for retail stores,offices,
banks and clinics from the permitted use list to a
standard.
6 4.5(D)(I xa) Lowers the minimum required density from 5 to 4 d.u./net 856 Amend 4.5(D)(1(a)LM-N Density-to lower the
acre,eliminates lnfill Map,adds 3 d.uJnet acre as minimum allowable density from 5 to 4 d.u./net acre,
minimum on parcels less than 20 acres city-wide.. to delete the reference to Infill Area and to raise the
minimum density on less than 20 acres from no
minimum requirement to 3 d.u./net acre city-wide.
6 4.5(D)(1)(b) Raises the maximum allowable density from 8 to 9 857 Amend 4.5(D)(1)(b)-LM-N Density-to raise the
d.u./gross acre. maximum allowable density from 8 to 9 d.u./gross acre.
6 4.5(D)(2)(a) Creates a greater diversity of housing types at lower 858 Amend 4.5(DX2)(a)-LM-N Mix.of Housing-to
acreage thresholds. revise and add to the list of housing types beginning
with parcels at 20(versus 30)acres needing 3(versus
2)types,and parcels at 30(versus 45)acres needing 4
(versus 3)housing types.
6 4.5(13)(2)(b) Adds a new housing type,clarifies lot size difference, 859 Amend 4.5(D)(2)(b)-LM-N Mix of Housing-to
corrects number of units in a multi-family building. revise/add allowable housing types to include lots with
rear-loaded garages and lots with less than 4,000 sq.ft.
or 40 feet or less street frontage,but with 2,000 sq.ft.
difference between lot types.
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 1 of 2
Ord.Section# Code Cit Revision Effect Issue
6 4.5(D)(2)[c] Lowers the maximum percentage of any one housing type, 860 Amend 4.5(D)(2)[c]-LMN Mix of Housing-to
sets a new minimum for any one housing type. reduce to 80%(versus 900%)the maximum allowable
for any single housing type,and to set a new floor of
5%for any single housing type.
6 4.5(D)(3) Moves the 5,000 sq.ftmaximum building footprint from 861 Amend 4.5(D)(3)-LMN Neighborhood Centers-to
permitted use to a standard. add back in the maximum building footprint of 5,000
square feet,the maximum size of 5 acres,as standards
versus permitted uses.
7 4.6(D)(1) Eliminates the Infill Map,minimum required density on 862 Amend 4.6(D)(1)-MMN Density-to delete the
parcels 20 acres or less to be 7 d.u./net acre city-wide. reference to Infill Area so that all areas shall have a
required minimum required density of 7 d.u./net acre '
city-wide.
8 4.2](13)(1) Creates a subdistrict in C zone on west side of I-25/Hwy 864 Amend 4.21(8)(1,2,3)-General Commercial District-
392 interchange with a specific list of permitted uses. Permitted Uses-to carve out a separate geographic
area around the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange,establish
permitted uses,and all uses in the entire C-G zone to
be listed in a new table format
9 4.21(H) Adds a new cross-reference in 4.21 to standards in 3.9.12. 864 Amend 4.21(Bx1,2,3)-General Commercial District-
Permitted Uses-to carve out a separate geographic
area around the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange,establish
permitted uses,and all uses in the entire C-G zone to
be listed in a new table format.
10 5.1.2 Deletes the MR Map. 867 'Amend 5.1.2-Definitions-to delete the Infill Map.
Thursday,February 17,2011 Page 2 of 2
Attachment 2
I-251SH 392 Interchange Project
Corridor Activity Center- Proposed Gateway Standards Overview
February 16, 2011
As part of the I-25/SH 392 Interchange reconstruction project, staff received initial direction by
City Council and Windsor Town Board to identify new land use and design standards to be
applied in the Corridor Activity Center(CAC) area surrounding the Interchange. This CAC area
(see map link) is identified as a gateway for both the City of Fort Collins and the Town of
Windsor. Windsor staff is using the same standards to incorporate into their Land Use Code.
The proposed CAC land use and design standards to be incorporated into the Land Use Code
(LUC) are combined with a series of other LUC amendments acting as implementation of Plan
Fort Collins. The 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) adopted by both jurisdictions
identifies further direction to develop and jointly adopt the described standards by March 31,
2011.
I. CAC Land Use Standards
Lodging Fast Food Restaurants
Retail Store Grocery/Supermarket
Multi-Family Mixed-Use Medical Center/Clinics
Mixed Use Residential Entertainment Facilities/Theaters
Offices/Financial Services Drive Thru Restaurants
Retail Establishment under 25,000 s . ft. Fuel Sales Convenience Stores
Small Scale Rec./Events Center Hospital
Standard Restaurant Long Term Care Facilities
Personal/Business Service Shops Adult Day Care Centers
Health Club Unlimited Indoor Recreation
Tele-Communication Equipment, 'excluding
Schools-PrivateNocational Colleges freestanding towers
Large Retail Establishment 25,000 s . ft. + Accessory buildings Basic Development Rev.
Accessory uses Basic Development Review
II. CAC Design Standards
1. Minimum Level of Masonry
The first proposed design standard is intended to ensure building ground floor facades that face a
public street contain high quality masonry materials such as brick and natural stone. The effect
of such a standard is to enhance primary commercial building frontage and entrances, and
maximize pedestrian scale architecture. The refined selection of building materials would
prohibit materials such as synthetic stucco, smooth-face block, or tilt-up concrete with applied
texturing. This standard would allow for higher quality architectural design of commercial
development in the gateway area.
2. Roofs
The proposed new roof standard would require a roof pitch versus a flat roof for commercial
buildings smaller than 25,000 square feet in size, and having three (3) stories or less. In cases
where mechanical equipment must be mounted on the roof, a sloping mansard would satisfy the
standard. This standard is in effect in the Timberline Center, the commercial development on
Timberline Road directly north of Police Services. The result is that the first two projects
constructed (self-storage and drive-through restaurant) feature an upgraded design that would
have otherwise not been provided.
3. Commercial Building Height
The existing allowed maximum building height in the Commercial Zone District is three to four
stories. The proposed increase in building height maximum is 90 feet, allowing more flexibility
in supporting taller commercial uses such as mid-size office and hotel development.
4. Commercial Sign Standard
The intent of identifying similar commercial sign standards is to establish a consistent
appearance and design quality for the CAC area, while avoiding freestanding pole signs typically
located along other I-25 interchanges. The proposed draft sign standards would permit low
ground or monument signs, excluding freestanding pole signs. The maximum allowed sign
height is fourteen (14) feet along and perpendicular to I-25, and twelve (12) feet along and
perpendicular to all other streets.
III. Process for implementing Gateway Standards
City of Fort Collins Amendment Process
I. Land Use
Fort Collins and Windsor have identified the CAC as a specific geographic area surrounding the
I-25/State Highway 392 interchange. In accordance with the City Structure Plan Map,this area
is designated as commercial land use. As part of the 2010 IGA between the City and the Town,
City staff proposes to amend the Land Use Code in the following manner in order to implement
the vision and establish new gateway design standards for this joint planning area.
As parcels are annexed within the CAC, they will be placed in the Commercial Zone District
(Section 4.21). The Commercial Zone District will be amended to carve out a new sub-district
that reflects the City's portion of the Corridor Activity Center. This further refinement of the
Commercial Zone District is similar to the sub-districts found in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Zone District, Limited Commercial Zone District, and the Downtown Zone
1-25/SH 392 Interchange - Draft Gateway Standards Page 2
District. The permitted uses allowed in this sub-district will be more restrictive than otherwise
allowed in the Commercial District, such as along South College Avenue.
2. Design
The Commercial Zone District already contains a reference for properties located along I-25,
Section 3.9 (Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor). The proposed new CAC design
standards will be located in Section 3.9.
IV. The Purpose of the proposed land uses and design standards outlined above would:
l. Establish cohesiveness with commercial development on both sides of the interstate.
2. Raise the bar above existing standards to contribute to establishing a unique sense of
place at a highly visible gateway location.
3. Promote commercial mixed-use development that will establish an attractive quality
gateway, while contributing a portion of the cost for reconstruction of the
interchange.
1-25/SH 392 Interchange - Draft Gateway Standards Page 3
ATTACHMENT 3
City of
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
97
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning
December 17, 2010
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Hutchinson and City Council Members
TH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manage t ,
Karen Cumbo, Interim Planning, D ve opment, and Transportation Director
FM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
RE: Work Session Summary, December 14 — Plan Fort Collins Phase 3 - Review of
Concurrent Implementation Actions and Strategies; Review of the Catalyst Project Area
Case Studies, Overview of the Master Street Plan, including status of the Corbett Drive
Collector Street Extension; and Review of the High Performing Community Section.
Work Session Participants:
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Department Director
Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
Ben Herman, Clarion Associates
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner
Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner
Jeremy Klop, Fehr and Peers
Tess Heffernan, Policy and Project Manager
Direction Sought/Questions to be Answered:
The Plan Fort Collins Project Management Team attended the December 14, 2010, Council
Work Session seeking input and direction from the City Council on the following:
1. Does City Council have any questions or concerns with the proposed amendments to the
Land Use Code?
2. Does Council have any questions or comments on the Catalyst Project Area case studies?
3. Does City Council have any questions or concerns regarding the Master Street Plan
update process and, in particular, any comments or questions on the Corbett Drive
collector street extension?
4. Do the Principles and Policies of the High Performing Community section of the Draft
City Plan set the direction that City Council wants to establish for the community?
. 1
City of
Fort Collins
Council's Discussion/Direction:
The following lists the major comments and concerns expressed by the City Council.
Amendments to the Land Use Code
I. Council asked. and staff confirmed, that the analysis of the proposed amendments to the
Land Use Code were still a" work-in-progress' and that staff was not prepared to present
recommendations to the Council at the work session.
2. Council directed staff to make sure affected parties, not just property-owners, were
notified of the pending changes to the UE-Urban Estate Zone.
3. Concern was raised regarding regulations about architectural character and how such
rules could be applied to different parts of the city, some of which have "historic"
characteristics and some of which do not.
4. Council asked for"sketches" of the design of the proposed interchange at I-25/392.
Catalyst Project Area Case Studies
1. Council thanked staff for the list of areas that were considered to be selected as Catalyst
Project Case Studies, and were generally supportive of the three catalyst areas that will be
highlighted in the Plan. Council asked why the list was not presented to the Council for
selection of the areas. Staff responded that it was an issue of timing and staff believed
there were more important items that needed to be discussed in work sessions with the
Council than the catalyst project areas. Staff did revise the case study examples to
include Mason Corridor in response to earlier Council comments.
2. Catalyst Project Case Study areas were again defined as example areas of Plan Fort
Collins' principles and policies and were not intended to be priority areas. The
identification of the areas has been misunderstood.
3. Campus West was asked to be put on the long list of case study areas, as was the Poudre
River Corridor.
4. Council asked that the "area objectives' regarding "River links" add some wording about
also enhancing habitat.
Master Street Plan Update Process - Corbett Drive Collector Street Extension
I. Council agreed with the staffs recommendation to delete the Corbett Drive collector
street extension from the Master Street Plan map. However, Council reaffirmed the need
for a strong connectivity policy for the city. Council asked for more information about
the use of the funds for traffic calming on Corbett Drive as described in the Development
Agreement for Front Range Village.
22
City of
2. There were Council questions regarding the Transportation Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) and how projects were going to be prioritized, including how to present the short-
term, long-range; and fiscally constrained CIP.
I Council also questioned how different types of vehicles likely be used in the future are
being incorporated into the Transportation Master Plan.
4. Council raised concerns as to the Prospect Road designation as an Enhanced' Travel
Corridor and asked how context sensitive design was going to protect the unique
environmental areas along the corridor.
5. Council asked for more details and mapping of pedestrian connections within activity
centers in the Pedestrian Plan.
6. Council asked about the possibility of using the unused railroad lines that run parallel to
College Avenue north of the River, for bikes and pedestrians.
High Performing Community Section
1. Council questioned if the High Performing Community section was still too government
oriented, and suggested that staff add emphasis on a model for community engagement.
volunteerism, and good citizenship; provide some guidance as to where the City needs
help and what people can do, including the role of CSU and PSD; and look for affinities
between groups/organizations. Council thought UniverCity Connections was an
innovative model.
2. Council praised the section as being unique and noted that it was not addressed in
previous versions of City Plan.
I Council recognized that the citizen participation effort was far superior this time to
previous planning processes.
Other
1. Council questioned the title "environmental resources" and suggested that a better title
might be`environmental health."
Next Step:
For the City Council, the next step in the Plan Fort Collins planning process will be the January
11. 2011. Work Session.
3
pr Advance Planning
City ®'9 281 North College Avenue }
Fort Collins 97PO Box 580
21.63
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.221.6376
970.224.6111 -fax
fcgov.com/advanceplanning !
i
a
February 11, 2011
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Hutchinson and City Council Members
y
TH: . Dann Atteberry, City Manager l
Diane Jones,Deputy City Manager 9
Karen Cumbo,Planning, Development, and Transportation Director
I
FM: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
RE: Work Session Summary, February 8, 2011 _ Plan Fort Collins: Phase 3 — Review of
Concurrent Implementation Actions including Subarea Plans and Land Use Code
Amendments.
a
Work Session Participants:
City Council (Hutchinson, Poppaw, Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, and Roy) `
Diane Jones,Deputy City Manager
Joe Frank,Advance Planning-- Director
Steve Dush, Current Planning—Director
I
Ken Waido, Advance Planning—Chief Planner
Pete Wray,Advance Planning—Senior City Planner
Timothy Wilder,Advance Planning-Senior City Planner
Ted Shepard—Current Planning—Chief Planner {
Direction Sought/Questions to be.Answered: i
1. Does City Council have any questions or concerns with the proposed amendments to the
Land Use Code?
2. Does City Council have any questions or concerns with the proposed amendments to the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan,Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and Northwest Subarea
Plan?
Council's Discussion/Direction:
The following lists the major topics of discussion and the questions, comments, and concerns .
expressed by the City Council.
1
i
i
4 8
--
r
i
f
9
City of
rt Collins
1
Land Use Code (LUC) Changes
f
1. Council questioned why staff is proposing Land Use Code amendments to the LMN
Neighborhood Centers standards (Items#855 and#861 in Attachment 1) if they are the result
of only one property-owner's concerns. Council expressed their own concerns about making
changes because of one person's issues.
l
j
Staff responded that one owner raised the issue, but upon investigation determined the
issue could apply to other neighborhood center locations, and thus, warranted review and
amendment.
2. Council expressed support for the proposed changes to increase the mix of housing types in
the LMN Zone.
3. Council questioned why LMN residential density standards state "gross" density for a
minimum and"net" density for a maximum—why not use the same standard for both?
Staff responded that they would provide more information on how and why the density
standards were established this way.
4. Council also questioned that, if the initial original concept in City Plan was to raise the
overall density in the city, why does staff propose to lower the minimum density standard in
the LMN Zone.
Staff responded that the density is still an important standard; however, there are projects
that have met the minimum numeric standards but do not address the intent of City Plan
for housing, lot and block variation. Also, raising the maximum allowable density might
offset some of the potential loss in housing supply.
i
5. Council questioned why there were so relatively few code changes being proposed after such F
a massive eleven month planning process.
i
ti
Staff responded that there are additional proposed changes in the Short Term (1-2 years) ?
i
Action Plan, and there was not sufficient time to complete the analysis of the additional
proposed changes.
i
I-25/392 Interchange Gateway Standards
I
1. Council requested that the Town of Timnath be approached to determine their interest in
having consistent design standards for the Harmony Road/I-25 interchange area.
s
t
Urban Estate Zone District 1
1. Council questioned why the increase in density in the Urban Estate zone district from a
maximum of 2 to a maximum of 3 was not being pursued, if, again, the initial original
concept in City Plan was to raise the overall density in the city. 1
i
i
2 3
5
S
3
3
City of
Fort Collins
Staff responded that additional time was needed to more fully evaluate the Urban
Estate Zone to understand issues of compatibility and where the increase in density
should be applied.
General Comments
1. Council expressed support for the additional student housing policies. 1
2. Council indicated a need for additional work with Poudre School District regarding
neighborhood schools.
3. Council thanked staff for coordination of Plan Fort Collins with the BFO process. 3
a
a
s
a
3
v
i
� — 3
9
i
1
t
,t
1
+S
3
3
3�
1
i
i
3
1
r
i
3s
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 11
Project: Plan Fort Collins
Project Description: This is a request for the Planning and Zoning Board to forward a recommendation
to the City Council for adoption of the updates to City Plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan, including the Master
Street Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan.
This is also a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the
implementation items for Plan Fort Collins. These items consist of proposed
revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code in support of plans and
polices identified by Plan Fort Collins.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to
the City Council for adoption of the updates to City Plan and the Transportation
Master Plan.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chair Stockover reported the Board's spent quite a bit of time on Plan Fort Collins. They've had quite a
few extra work sessions on it and this is an item, unlike the last, where they've had information overload.
"They got it early and they got it often." Plan Fort Collins consists of City Plan, Transportation Master
Plan, the Pedestrian Plan, Subarea Plans, and the Amendments to the Land Use Code. The information
will be presented as one but there will be time for citizen input on each one of those elements as is
desired.
Chief Planner Ken Waido said they are here to recommend approval to the updates to City Plan, the
Transportation Master Plan (including Capital Improvement Plan) and the Pedestrian Plan. Later on
they'll detail the implementation steps which include the Subarea Plan Amendments, the Master Street
Plan Amendments, and the Land Use Code Amendments, which they will also be asking the Board to
recommend to City Council. Waido reviewed the year long process. They will be taking their
presentation to City Council for adoption on February 15—the last step in the planning process.
Waido said City Plan has been restructured into the following seven theme areas: Economic Health;
Environmental Resources; Community and Neighborhood Livability; Safety and Wellness; Culture,
Parks, and Recreation; Transportation; and High Performing Community. Each section includes: a Vision
statement; a Background discussion containing an Overview, which discusses the primary focus of the
section, provides a listing of Related Plans and Policies, documents where more specific City policies
may be located, public information and data reported, or other documents of interest; a Sustainability
section presenting a triple bottom line analysis of the section related to the Economy, Environment, and
Human elements; and the Principles and Policies of the section
Waido said from the beginning, the Plan Fort Collins' planning process was directed to incorporate the
concept of sustainability as a foundational element and cohesive systems approach to decision making.
To integrate the concept of sustainability across all phases of the planning process, a triple bottom line
perspective was used to support informed decision making. The Triple Bottom Line Decision Support
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 12
Tool (TBL-DST) was developed and was designed specifically to support the Plan Fort Collins decision-
making process by providing a disciplined, transparent, consistent, and organized way in which to
evaluate principles, policies, and/or projects through the lens of sustainability. In addition to its utility as a
decision tool, TBL-DST should help decision makers keep their eye on the overarching indicators to be
developed as part of the Plan Fort Collins Monitoring Program. This monitoring approach will provide
feedback to citizens and policymakers on whether the policies in the plans are helping to achieve the
vision for a world class community.
Waido said a new section in City Plan is an Action Plan which consists of Priority Actions and Strategies,
and Catalyst Project Areas. Implementation will take many forms including: Projects, Regulations,
Programs, and Organizational Changes. Some of the implementation actions will be prepared to be
completed concurrently with plan adoptions February/March (2011). Others will be placed into an "Action
Plan" containing: Near-Term Actions, to be completed in one to two years (2011 through 2012) and
Longer-Term Actions which will take longer to complete (2013 and beyond). Catalyst Project Areas are
initiatives that use a multi-disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing economic,
environmental and social factors to effect change.' Catalyst project areas embrace the City Plan vision
themes --- Innovate, Sustain, Connect.
Director of Transportation Planning & Special Projects Kathleen Bracke said the City's Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) is designed to ensure an integrated transportation system that supports the
community's land-use, economic health, and environmental stewardship objectives. The TMP document
includes the Master Street Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and Pedestrian Plan. The draft plans are
very comprehensive and address all modes of transportation, with an emphasis on the connection
among the City's land use, transportation, economic, and environmental objectives.
Bracke said the Master Street Plan (MSP) serves as a map of the City's long-range vision for its major
street network. This includes existing and future vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian connections throughout
the City and its growth management area. The MSP also reflect the type of street (i.e. collector, arterial,
etc.) and the general location for planning transportation connections.
Bracke said the multimodal transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes updated project lists
for each of the project categories within the CIP. A short-term (5-6+ year) CIP provides a crossing
cutting, top tier project list based on the highest ranking projects from all of the transportation categories
and will take into account potential synergies among various modal projects as well as cross cutting
opportunities among multiple City departments. A longer term goal is to have a cross-cutting city-wide
capital improvement plan that integrates transportation, utilities, parks, recreation, trails, facilities, and
operations needs from throughout the organization.
Senior City Planner Pete Wray said the key themes for the Pedestrian Plan include: a need to improve
infrastructure and safety programs to enhance pedestrian safety for people of all ages and abilities; a
need for improved maintenance of pedestrian facilities, including repair/replacement, snow removal, and
sweeping; important linkages between pedestrian walkways and transit routes/stops; and promoting a
mix of land uses and activity centers that can maximize walk ability.
Wray said the Pedestrian Plan update includes a revised map of priority pedestrian areas/districts
throughout the community to reflect the structure plan land-use map as well as other key areas (schools,
parks, neighborhood.destinations). New themes are:
Improved infrastructure and safety programs to enhance pedestrian safety for people of all ages
& abilities
Improved maintenance of pedestrian facilities
• Linkages between pedestrian walkways and transit
• Promoting a mix of land uses and activity centers that can maximize walk ability
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 13
He displayed a Pedestrian Priority Areas Map and provided a sample of the2010-11 Priority Pedestrian
Project List.
Waido said review by the Planning & Zoning Board is a key step in the planning process because the
Board is charged by the Municipal Code to advise City Council on long range planning. City Plan and
the Transportation Master Plan are the two most important fundamental planning documents that the City
adopts. He said City Council has a few more work sessions scheduled to talk about detailed policies and
in some of the theme areas. The key date is February 151h when City Council is schedule to consider
adoption of the update to City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. He said some of the
implementation actions will be coming to City Council in March. Waido said staff is available for any
questions the Board may have. There were no questions from the Board.
Chair Stockover asked if we should be asking for citizen input at this point or after the implementation
presentation. Director Dush said the Board had two options. If the Board decides to have two
presentations—one for the Plans update and one for the implementation, the Board would need to follow
the normal protocol relating to public participation with staff response and.Board recommendation. The
other option is to have staff make the implementation presentation then open both up for citizen input.
Stockover asked for a show of hands from the audience on the items just presented. No one raised their
hand. He then asked how many people would like to speak to the implementation portion. One person
raised their hand. Waido said staff believes that most of the people who may want to speak may want to
speak to the proposed ordinance changes. Stockover asked staff to make the implementation
presentation.
Implementation-Land Use Code Amendments
Senior City Planner Timothy Wilder said staff has three items as follow-up to the previous presentation
including Subarea Plan Amendments, Land Use Code Amendments, and Master Street Plan
Amendments. As stated earlier, he said they are seeking recommendation from the Board to City
Council on each of these items.
Wilder said they are seeking amendments to three sub-area plans including the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and the Northwest Subarea Plan. The changes are
proposed in order to insure consistency between City Plan and the subarea plans. They are related to
the Urban Estate (UE) Zone district and the Low Density Mixed use Neighborhoods (LMN) Zone district.
The second item is amendments to the Land Use Code (LUC)which fall into minor and major categories.
They will cover the major items of which there are four. The first item is the 1-25/Hwy 392 Interchange
Corridor Activity Center(CAC) design standards and land use. These are the result of extensive work
and collaboration with the Town of Windsor and they are intended to provide a higher level of quality and
cohesion on each side of the interchange. Wilder exhibited the list of permitted uses. It's a more-narrow
list and will now be added to what they'll be calling the General Commercial District. It'll be a separate
listing. The intent is to provide more commercial development at this important gateway location. They'll
also have design standards for the gateway area they are proposing in Article 3—development standards
for the 1-25 corridor. They've identified four areas to supplement the existing commercial standards.
They are intending to "raise the bar' in quality for the Corridor Activity Center.
The next item for the Board's consideration is the Urban Estate (UE) District. City Plan policies discuss
both the overall direction of the community for a compact urban form and a specific density for the UE
District. The context of the UE amendments is the overall changes that have occurred in and around the
City's Growth Management Area (GMA) in regards to existing or planned levels of development. He said
we're talking about Timnath, Windsor, Loveland and Wellington as being new factors that were not
considered when the district was created. He said much of the UE land is adjacent to higher density
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 14
residential subdivisions. One of the other issues related to these amendments is that few new suburban
sized lots have been created in the GMA since City Plan was adopted in 1997. He provided an example
just south.of Drake and west of Taft Hill Road.
Wilder said the amendments will increase the allowable density from 2 to 3 dwelling units per acre.
There are a number of exclusions. It would not apply to platted lots or lots in the Northwest Subarea
Plan, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, or the 1-25 Subarea Plan. This provision would apply to the
clustering portions of the zone district. He showed a map with information on affected parcels. It
includes some outside of city limits. He said obviously many of those would develop in the County and
would not be subject to this change. Wilder said in conclusion it could provide some additional housing
in certain areas of the community and add to the size of suburban sized lots. He said in terms of public
outreach, he thinks the Board will be getting citizen feedback as the result of a couple of direct mailings
to affected property owners. He said staff has received considerable input both by phone and by email.
Wilder said the next item for consideration for LUC amendments is changes to the Low Density Mixed-
Use (LMN) District. There are a number of policies that apply specifically to this district regarding
variation in housing, the density issue, and a mix of housing types. One issue of which the Board is
aware is the lack of housing lot variation in several of our new LMN neighborhoods. Another issue is the
lack of new suburban sized lots in new neighborhoods. He showed examples of some projects where
they've seen there's very little variation in the lot sizes and the blocks. As currently written it complies
with current code so these recommended changes are to "raise the bar" so that it meets the intent of City
Plan in terms of housing variation. Wilder said they have seven specific changes that look at density and
increasing the range of density. Some of them are numeric and performance based changes to the
density housing types and mix of housing requirements.
He reviewed a map that shows the applicability of the changes. The conclusions are the changes should
result in a greater housing mix, more variation in lots sizes, and less monotonous streetscapes. On this
issue, staff had provided a direct mailing and notice at Plan Fort Collins meetings. They've heard very
little public feedback.
The last item is the infill area. It provides an exception to the minimum density requirements in the LMN
and MMN Districts for developments of 20 acres or less. The purpose was to provide flexibility in
achieving compatibility with existing neighborhoods in areas that were well served by City services.
However, as the city has grown, the infill areas have proven to be less useful. The amendments are to
eliminate the concept of the infill area, however, retaining the density exception in the LMN and MMN
Zones. The result may be a slight reduction in housing supply but increase in density flexibility. He
reviewed a map that exhibited the properties affected by the change. They did a direct mailing to
property owners and notice was given at the various Plan Fort Collins meetings. They haven't received
any public comments.
Implementation-Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Amendments
Transportation Planner Matt Wempe said the Master Street Plan (MSP) serves as a map of the City's
long-range vision for its major street network. This includes existing and future vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian connections throughout the City and its growth management area. The MSP also reflect the
type of street (i.e. collector, arterial, etc.) and the general location for planning transportation
connections. This is the document that connects policies in the TMP to the requirements of the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). It puts the vision of our transportation network into
practice.
Wempe said the vision is for a connected community with:
Land use and transportation will be fully integrated, both locally and regionally, to create an
affordable, accessible, low energy, low impact, and efficient transportation system.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 15
• Multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel will ensure mobility for people of
all ages and abilities.
• Multiple travel modes will make it easy to choose transportation options that support a healthy
lifestyle.
• Innovative travel modes will be accommodated through flexibility in the transportation system.
• The transportation system will provide safe, reliable, convenient, and effective vehicular mobility
and access.
Wempe said there are currently 14 locations being evaluated as part of the update process to
understand the impact of right sizing the street classification and designations on the MSP map:
1. Lincoln Avenue, between Jefferson Street and Lemay Avenue
2. Corbett Drive Extension, south of Paddington
3. Prospect Road, between Timberline Road and Interstate 25 (1-25)
4. Timberline Road, between Harmony Road and Vine Drive
5. Shields Street, between Mulberry Street and CR 54G/SH287
6. Laurel Street, between Meldrum and Shields streets
7. Laurel Street, between Lesser and Pennock streets
8. Carpenter Road/SH392, between College Avenue/US287 and 1-25
9. LaPorte Avenue, between Wood and Howes streets
10. Mulberry Street, west of Overland Trail to City Limit
11. Overland Trail, between LaPorte Avenue and Drake Road
12. Harmony Road, between Platte and Overland Trail
13. Troutman Parkway and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Crossing
14. Keenland Drive and Union Pacific Railroad Crossing
The changes they are recommending are outlined in Appendix E which was distributed to the Board. He
highlighted the four projects which received the preponderance of interest, had some additional analysis,
and received public input.
Lincoln Avenue on The Lincoln Triangle Catalyst Protect is a triangular-shaped area on the north
side of Fort Collins, generally bounded by Riverside Avenue/Jefferson,Street on the west, Lincoln
Avenue on the South, South Lemay Avenue on the east, and East Vine Drive on the north.
Corbett Drive is a pretty involved public issue. They've included a public report which is above
and beyond what was done for most of the MSP as far as public input. They are recommending
the terminus north of the Front Range Village Shopping Center and up to Paddington Road come
off the MSP.
Prospect Road between Timberline and 1-25 is designated as 4 lane arterial based on future
growth both along 1-25 and the 1-25 Corridor. The City had done planning considering Kingfisher
Point, Riverbend Ponds and Cattail Chorus. The road design is sensitive to those natural areas
and is different from what is in LCUASS.
Timberline Road between Harmony and realigned Vine Drive in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
This has been designated as a 6 lane arterial street. Between Prospect and realigned Vine they
recommend it goes from a 6 to a 4 lane arterial. It is an enhanced travel corridor.
Wempe said a new concept of an Overlay Map identifies corridors when we have context sensitive
solutions. They want to have a street design that is perhaps different than the standard but it's working
more to address the land use context and basically to be a more functional street. The Board
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 16
commented at a work session that they should take a look at alternative design for collector level streets.
They are looking especially at context sensitive solutions in redevelopment and infill areas and they think
the policy mentioned earlier by Kathleen Bracke accomplishes that.
Wilder said in conclusion they have three implementation items for which they are seeking the Board's
recommendation to City Council: Subarea Plan Amendments, Land Use Code Amendments, and Master
Street Plan Amendments. They are seeking separate recommendations and are available for questions.
Board's Questions
Chair Stockover asked do we still have Overland Trail from Mulberry to Drake. Wempe said from
Elizabeth to Laporte it'll go from a 4 lanes to a 2 lanes. At Laporte it switches to a two-lane arterial going
north. It'll continue to be 4 lanes between Elizabeth and Drake.
Public Input
Mickey Willis lives at 2969 Spring Harvest Lane. He would hope the City would consider doing
something relative to the train. It's a health hazard to this community. We have a commitment of a
Master Transportation Plan going up Mason Street that's through the middle of a street that is a disaster
waiting to happen. He said we're expecting to spend millions of dollars to implement this Plan through .
the middle of the best town in America and want to develop high density units and commercial operations
to create more opportunities for families to be downtown but we still have this hazard with which we are
not dealing. There's an opportunity created by the 9/11 process—the government is now identifying
hazardous areas of a community. The "stuff"that is coming via the train cannot be on the roads. He said
for too long we have avoided talking about this "elephant in the room". He would wish that part of this
transportation plan would deal with it. The City of Fort Collins is in a better position than any other
community in America in that it owns the right-of-way. The railroads have an easement to use, operate,
and maintain that line. They don't have the true authority to dictate its purpose and continued use. It
used to carry people, coal and lumber—that's not what they carry anymore.
Willis said he would bring up at the appropriate time (subarea concentrations on Structure Plan) the
appropriateness of some zones on some new MTP arterials.
Eric Sutherland lives at 3520 Golden Current. He said he's right there with the previous speaker in that
this is the best town in America. He appreciates the opportunity to speak about Plan Fort Collins. On
Joe Franks' invitation he took him up on his invitation to come into the Advance Planning Office and
discuss his concerns. He said they canceled his appointment without telling him so it's really nice to
have this opportunity to speak his mind about how he feels about the process. The one word he'd use is
meaninglessness. That's really what a lot of this ends up being. It's a pretty strong criticism so he'd like
to flush that out with a few points. One might be the housing standards for the Eastside/Westside
neighborhoods. Political difficulties are not going to go away with Plan Fort Collins.
Sutherland said another issue is the LUC interpretations associated with the Campus Crest the Grove
Development. How can we say we're getting better when we can't interpret the LUC as it exists today?
He said standards that didn't need modifications coming to the Board and other incredibly important
standards that needed interpretation by the Board are being completely left out of the entire process. He
said student housing is incredibly important to the economic health of this community. It' appears only
twice in the entire 158 pages of Plan Fort Collins document.
Sutherland says you have a spectrum of planning. On one hand you have outcome driven project
management and on the other side is "navel gazing". In Fort Collins we spend an awful lot of time on this
side of that spectrum—excluding what we need to be doing tomorrow to make this a better community.
One place is energy. There are rural electric associations in the State of Colorado doing a better job of
preparing a sane energy future for their children than is the City of Fort Collins. FortZED is completely
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 17
upside down from how a smart grid might have been conceived/evolve. It just doesn't make sense. We
need to do so much better than this and he hopes this Board will take under advisement the,fact that this
just doesn't relate to the real world.
Kathleen Kilkelly lives at 920 Inverness which is in the Growth Management Area in Larimer County.
She's hoping to have more than 4 minutes as she actually represents more than herself. She has 10
signatures. They are the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition. As members they request the Board not
approve an increase in the density of the Urban Estate Zone. They feel that because there was
insufficient notification of residents either within or nearby land zoned UE. She spent 3 hours driving in
her very sparsely populated neighborhood and most people she talked to had not received a notice. She
received the notice dated December 9, 2010 which promptly got buried at the bottom of Christmas
.related materials. She kept checking the web page looking for when Urban Estates (UE) was coming up
and until the 191h of January, the web page did not mention anything about UE zoning being discussed
here tonight.
Kilkelly said she'd like to give one example of why they don't feel there was sufficient notification. In her
neighborhood there's a very large 80 acre parcel that is undeveloped zoned UE. Directly across the road
is a small house that's over 100 years old where my farrier lives. He did not get any notification at all
because he's out the GMA. He feels that he would be impacted and he would have definitely wanted to
comment. To her knowledge, the discussion with any neighboring residents about possible.impact was
non-existent. She did not participate in Plan Fort Collins (especially those during regular working hours).
She did try to keep up on the web page.
r
They feel this is a very major and important change to zoning and it definitely affects the quality and
character of their properties. They have fought very hard to protect those properties in the past as some
may remember. Their group has become involved in many development proposals both within the City
of Fort Collins and Larimer County. They feel there are other means in providing lot size diversity and
variation and they should be explored. They don't feel that they have been. They believe there are other
available processes by which these modifications may be made on an individual project basis. They feel
that a blanket approach by changing the LUC is not necessary and is inappropriate.
They also think they have been targeted unfairly because of the other excluded UE areas. They'd like to
know why those other areas have been exempted from this proposed change. She'd like to see the map
that shows all the UE and then she'd like to see super imposed on that where this change might be
applicable. She lives in the Northeast and she thinks it would stand out very clearly that this is an area
which would be dramatically impacted. Their area does not have a subarea plan so they feel that they've
had very little chance for input into this whole process.
Kilkelly said over 11 years ago their group put together a special area plan that was submitted to Larimer
County. At that time their budgets simply couldn't address it. They did come back and there was a small
transportation study done in their area but they feel for them the major issue is compatibility.
Transportation is also a very large issue. They feel that this increase in density defeats the original and
continuing purpose of the UE zoning to provide a transition. She would beg to differ that feathering is not
needed anymore. She would invite the Board to drive in their area, look at that, and see there is still a lot
of potential of undeveloped and unplatted areas that will dramatically affect those of them in the GMA as
well as Larimer County.
Kilkelly said another comment she'd like to make is there was a reference made to how increasing the
density would raise the home supply. At the moment, she doesn't think that's a tremendous issue
anyone is worried about. The idea of raising that home supply is to improve the level of services out
there. She said in your own City Plan it states that the UE area should not expect the same level of
services. She and her neighbors like their dirt roads. They ride their horses there. When you start
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 18
raising the level of density in areas that border theirs; it starts looking like suburbia and people expect the
level of service to be higher. They think that's unfair and it's a burden not just other city residents but the
county as well.
Marcia Lots lives at 3501 Juanita Road. Ms. Lots said Kathleen Kilkelly said it all. She doesn't think the
City should change the UE. It doesn't make any sense to her. The one thing about the 80 acres is they
live right next door to the Boma Property. Two times developers have tried to come in but one of the
important players on that particular piece of property is the oil company in the neighborhood. There are
three wells there. They stated to the last developer there's an extremely expensive cost to digging their
lines up if they have to move them and that would be the developers cost. She said that would put 240
homes in there and that is not compatible with what they have out there. As far as a world class city who
cares—she thinks we need to be a functional and practical city.
Gary Priest lives at 2103 Westview Road. He's here to make comments about the change in the LUC
related to 3 from 2 dwellings per acre. He said a month ago today they met with the County. There had
been some interest in developing the 9 acre Ehmann Property east of them. Currently it would be
possOWe te-have 18 homes and with the proposed, 27 homes. The adjacent properties have 3-5 acre
lots. They are not only concerned about density but also how it would affect their lifestyle and traffic.
Density worries them because they have a lot of land around them and they enjoy their lifestyle. He
thinks 3 units per acre would be excessive.
Susan Peterson lives at 1919 Westview Road. She is concerned about the same issues related to the
Ehmann Property. The UE with 2 houses per acre makes sense. It doesn't make sense to skip from an
acreage density to 3 units per acre. She echoes what Kathleen Kilkelly said.
Elaine Spencer lives at 3605 Bayshore Road which is in a little subdivision that goes south of the tree
farm on Douglas Road. While she'd like to be altruistic and say that's she's concerned about the greater
good, she really is just concerned for herself and her neighbors. She would like to know what kind of
urban standards the City has in case a developer builds houses that would block their view. She said
most properties are on septic tanks. She'd like to know how they'd get services to them. She wouldn't
like to see any more people out there. Douglas Road is already like a race track during rush hour.
Carrie Berkman lives at 706 Blue Teal Drive near the Ehmann Property. She wants to echo what
previous speakers have said. The changes in densities from very low to a much higher density will
probably cause a lot of difficulties with traffic. She doesn't know how you'd even build extra roads on the
piece of property that's being considered for expansion. She said she knows of one more family in the
neighborhood who is against 3 per acre.
Kay Linder lives at 2105 Sage Drive next to the Ehmann Property. Her issue is with the City wanting to
increase density in the UE zones. She lives across the street from the previously mentioned 9 acre
parcel being considered for development. She would hate 18 much less 27 homes there. She thinks
we need to change the way we have this worded. She's against doing a blanket change on UE
properties moving them from 2 to 3. She doesn't think it's fair. She said each property is unique and you
need to look at the adjacent properties and how they're zoned.
Christina Rosenberg lives at 2109 Sage Drive next to the Ehmann Property. She moved here 6 months
ago from Chicago. She said Fort Collins is an amazing and friendly place. They've received 2 letters
about changing the 9 acres in front of their home from 18 to 27 houses. She said Kay Linder actually
went around and spoke to all of the neighbors. She's never seen a community pulled together the way
theirs does. If you stand in their driveway in the summer you see double rainbows because there's
nothing in front of them. At night you can see stars. She said to add that many houses will really change
the community. It's not fair not to notify people about that.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 19
End of Public Input
Board's Questions
Butch asked for staff response.
Ted Shepard would like to address a point that was of concern to 5 speakers. The Ehmann Property is
an active project in Larimer County. Its south of Country Club Road and was part of an 11 acre parcel.
The Ehmann family split off the house on Country Club Road resulting in a 9 acre vacant parcel. It was
split with a minor land division which is a subdivision process. The City has specifically stated in the
proposed ordinance that if you are part of a County subdivision, you would not be eligible for the 3 units
per acre. He'd also like to clear up a distinction between gross and net. When you net out acreage you
net out roads, easements, drainage, bicycle path connections, and things like that. That would result in
perhaps 20% less than gross times 3. So the 9 acre parcel would not(even if it were in the City) get 9 x
3 because that would be greater than 3 units per acre net.
Shepard said zoning is at a higher level than whether or not you are on septic or sewer. We know that's
very important because we know you cannot get that kind of density without sanitary sewer but zoning
does not talk about that. Zoning doesn't talk about the buffering next to larger lots. Zoning doesn't talk
about views. It's the 10 pound hammer in the toolbox that's filled with much smaller hammers. It's really
hard for him to talk at the zoning level about septic versus sanitary, protecting views, and how you go
from gross to net. He said staff has received a lot of calls regarding the potential development of the
Ehmann Property. It's a contentious project currently going through a Larimer County process and it's
quite complicated due to some plat notes and some appeals. The City is aware of it. It's not contiguous
to the City boundary and he doesn't' think it'll ever be before the Board.
Shepard said speaking to the Boma property, there is oil and gas there. Again zoning doesn't' say you're
UE but if you have oil and gas, you're a different kind of UE. Article 3 General Development Standards
where there's buffering, setbacks, site design and land planning standards does not speak to the zoning
of land.
Shepard said they know about the parcels mentioned. They know they've been in the Growth
Management Area (GMA)for a long time. The GMA from 1997 to 2002 was still considered flexible. In
2002, City Plan firmed that up. The GMA is now fixed. That ties into one of the Code changes on
deleting the references to infill. The infill area in the LMN and MMN had special considerations of not
meeting density standards. That's been rendered meaningless with the Southwest Annexation, the
"hard"(less flexible) GMA, the Timnath situation on the east side of our City, and all the acquisitions of
natural areas, open space, and conservation easements.
Chair Stockover asked if we had anything that addresses views. Shepard said there is some solid view
protection in case law protecting the view from City Park (a public space). There are no private sector
view shed protections in the LUC. Shepard said in Old Town there are floor area ratios that cannot be
exceeded in the rear half of lots in the NCL, NCM and NCB Zones in Old Town to protect view, air and
open space in back yards. Shepard said there is also shadow analysis on buildings higher than 40 feet.
Member Smith asked staff to speak to the citizens' concerns regarding notification. Wilder said he'd put
it into the context of the Plan Fort Collins effort. That public involvement effort was a part of the Plan Fort
Collins outreach to look at the policy basis for some of the LUC changes. There is no specific
requirement like you'd find for a development review project. Staff did feel it was necessary to reach out
and do some additional notification for affected adjacent properties city-wide. It was a judgment call as
to where and how much within the timeframe they had to work. Wilder said it's important to mention
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 20
there will be two additional hearings of this item at City Council and additional ways for the public to
provide feedback.
Staff member Shepard said he'd like to speak to the compatibility issue brought up by Kathleen Kilkelly.
Zoning is one method of obtaining compatibility. In Article 3 in the General Development Standards, we
have a buffering and a land use transition standard you can use to review a site plan. We also have the
natural resource buffers which can be either performance or metrics based. Some of the metrics such as
ditches need a 50 foot buffer, lakes and reservoirs need a 100 foot buffer, the Poudre River needs a 300
foot buffer. Wetlands can be buffered depending on their size. He said using the tool box analogy, there
are other tools in the tool box. The Board gets to look at those and be the judge.
Member Carpenter said in response to the gentlemen who spoke earlier. Does the City of Fort Collins
own the railroad right-of-way? Bracke said there's been some confusion about that. The portion of
Mason Street downtown is a City street but the majority of the Burlington Northern Corridor is in a
railroad right-of-way.
Board Discussion
Member Schmidt said in dealing with the Urban Estate (UE) issue, the change in density is mentioned in
the City Plan document which drives the implementation standards. She would question the short time
frame allowed for the notification standard. She has a memo from last April from Ted Shepard indicating
changes in UE density was a possibility, it's too bad that if something concrete was going to come
forward there wasn't an effort to talk to people affected by the UE density change much sooner.
Schmidt said when she read the purpose (Section 4.2 (A)) she noted changes such as medium to large
lot housing, suburban style, and changing from transitions to more urban development and rural or open
lands to transition between more intense urban development and very low density areas. Those
changes as well as allowing lots as small as 9,000 square feet are concerning. She's not saying the UE
cannot use some tweaking because '/2 acre probably doesn't work with the kind of flexibility we are trying
to achieve. She thinks the whole nature of the district is being changed by the changes we're making in
City Plan and the Land Use Code.
Member Schmidt said that really involves a greater level of participation than what we've had. Part of
that might be because some of the UE areas are not in subarea plans. It could be that those who have
been in subarea plans have had the opportunity to be discussed. She used as an example the small
events center being allowed in the UE. There were assurances they could work with conditions but sure
enough the first event center came and it was a nightmare for the Board. They had to condition that
development proposal because it still didn't really fit and there were a lot of hard feelings about that.
It makes her think if you have to tweak something so much it isn't really a good idea. It makes her think
we're not ready to make this jump right now.
Member Schmidt's suggestion would be that we recommend City Plan go forward, we leave UE as it was
in the old Plan, and we work on developing a more context sensitive design. It's going to give us a lot
more tools to deal with making development really compatible in those areas. She thinks the UE areas
in town are very different. She doesn't think one brush stroke is going to work for all UEs. There are
some close to Timnath that are more impacted by higher density. There are others that are truly on the
fringe where we are going to have an edge transition to Wellington. That's her main concern. She just
feels that this is very similar to Eastside/Westside—we're coming up with a broad stroke idea that hasn't
really been refined and is not to the benefit of the people who live in the UE area.
Member Schmidt said if we could give that some more work and discussion, we'd come up with truly a
better outcome. It's very possible the earlier definition of UE needs to be changed to make it a little bit
more flexible. She suggests we have focus groups where you're discussing those projects and come up
with new code that really works. She also doesn't think it's fair to let the new development have 3 units
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 21
of acre and flexibility with 9,000 square foot lots but if you have a large platted lot you can't have that—
you have to stay at the Y2 acre requirement. She said we say those with platted lots can ask for a
modification. Her feeling is than the unplatted lots can also ask for a modification. She said if it's a great
plan, bring it forward with a modification—we'll take a look at it.
Member Schmidt said we're not just changing the density like we are in LMN. What we're doing in UE is
really changing the nature of the district. That's fine if we really get agreement that that's what we want
to do. She doesn't think there's been enough outreach to let affected people present relative to changing
the nature of UE. Member Schmidt said if you look at page 54 of City Plan, it shows where the subarea
plans are and you'll see a lot of the areas that have UE that would develop in the future but they have not
had the benefit of having a subarea plan review process. She doesn't think that's really fair.
Member Schmidt moved the Planning & Zoning Board recommends to City Council the adoption
of City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan with the exception of the Urban
Estate (UE) neighborhood description on Page 74 of City Plan.
Member Schmidt said she recommends we keep the old City Plan description and she would like a time
a revisit that topic when we have an action plan for the content with formula based reviews.
Director Dush said if you want to have a reconsideration of that language as a part of the
recommendation, he would suggest that you provide that in your motion. He heard her say she would
like staff to review as a part of the implementation steps when we've had a chance to look at conceptual
design things considering context, sustainability, flexibility, and a predictable zoning tool. Member
Schmidt thought she might like to do that as a separate motion.
Member Schmidt asked if it could be added as an action item. Waido said the 1-2 year strategies are
basically funded and are a part of their work program. Adding this item would not fit in—they don't have
funding for that type of work program item without taking something else off the list. It would probably be
in a longer term item list. Waido said if the desire of the Board is to do more outreach and look at this
again at some point in the future, than let's put it into the second tier of work.
Dush said for clarity's sake, he heard Member Schmidt recommend approval of City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan excepting the language related to Urban Estate on page 74 of City Plan
going back to the existing Urban Estate language. Member Schmidt said we could add the part about
recommending the evaluation for this occur in the second tier of the implementation.
Member Schmidt moved the Planning &Zoning Board recommends to City Council the adoption
of City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan with the exception of the Urban .
Estate (UE) neighborhood language on Page 74 of City Plan. She recommends we go back to the
previous description for UE with an evaluation of that change to occur in the second tier of the
implementation. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Chair Stockover said he'd like to go on record as saying his biggest areas of concern have been
transportation related. He agrees with being visionary and he agrees with being proactive. He would
just say when we move forward with alternate vehicle types that is a very slippery slope. We don't know
what the alternate vehicle types are going to be or when the big breakthrough will be. We need to be
very cautious in investing in infrastructure and then not have the vehicle type we're planning for. He said
we don't know what the "real" alternate fuel is going to be in the future.
Stockover said his other real concern is the trails. He can't stress enough that he thinks the Poudre
River Trail and the Spring Creek Trail are two precious assets and in his mind are mainly recreational.
He would hate to see them be reconfigured to accommodate any other type of transportation whether it
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 22
is scooters or very small electric cars. He thinks our streets are adequate for being adapted to that type
of transportation. He said the wording is there—sensitive to natural areas. He appreciates all the work
that's been done and he appreciates the wording that has accommodated his suggestions. He just
wants to put an exclamation point on it. He said that is an area we should have a lot of citizen input
before we do any redesign of those particular trails. He said he is in support of the motion on the table.
Member Campana said he really doesn't have all that much of an issue with the UE modifications staff is
proposing. This has been a really fast process and there should be as much input as possible. Given
what he's heard tonight at public input, it does matter to the Board. A little more time doesn't hurt.
Member Carpenter said she's going to support the motion as well. She'd like to thank staff for the work
they've done and their responsiveness when they requested extra meetings. The Board was feeling like
they were drinking out of a fire hose. As busy as they were, she appreciated staffs responsiveness to
giving the Board the extra meetings they needed in order for them to understand this document with all of
its changes and to help them be able to make intelligent decisions about it. She said "thanks so much" to
staff for that.
The motion was approved 5:0
Implementation Recommendations/Subarea Plan Amendments
Member Schmidt said because the TDU (Transfer Development Units) relates to the UE in the Fossil
Creek Subarea Plan, do we need that at this time? Staff member Wray said within the Fossil Creek
Plan, they have a map that shows affected properties for that change; it does pertain to the TDU
receiving area east of Timberline Road and south of Kechter Road. He said there are only a small
handful of properties that are not existing subdivisions or platted lots for which this would apply. Schmidt
said since at this time we are not recommending the change to UE, we won't need to change that plan.
Wray said there is a portion outside the TDU area for the LMN change. Schmidt said relative to the
handout that provided proposed text amendments to the subarea plans she asked if that is how it would
be worked. Wilder said that's the first item on the list the Board should consider and given her previous
comments she may want to look at the UE change on that first item and have similar language on that
piece of it.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council
the proposed implementation actions items to the Subarea Plans that relate to the Low Density
Mixed Use Neighborhoods, excepting any references related to the three dwelling units per acre
in the UE.
Member Campana said there are changes there relative to the receiving area and TDUs. Director Dush
said there may be other minor elements in there and if your intent was to simply eliminate the 3 dwelling
units per acre, you can make the recommendation for all excepting out that reference.
Wray said to clarify what he's hearing for the LMN changes that affects the three subarea plans. If you're
excluding the UE provision as described in the LUC that only affects the Fossil Creek Plan.
Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council
the approval of the Concurrent Implementation Action Amendments to the Subarea Plans with
the exception of any reference to expanding the density to 3 dwelling units per acre in the UE.
Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Planning &Zoning Board
January 20, 2011
Page 23
Member Schmidt asked Wilder if we're getting rid of the infill map will everything be an infill project.
Wilder said no. The criteria would be what zone district it is in (LMN or MMN) and is it 20 acres in size or
less.
Implementation Recommendations/LUC Amendments
Member Schmidt said except for the first two items (#853 and #854) she would recommend approval of
the rest of the items. Member Campana said he'd agree. Chair Stockover asked other members if they
had any items they'd like to pull. There were none.
Member Schmidt moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to City Council the
adoption of LUC amendments 855 through 867 (excluding 853 and 854). Member Campana
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Implementation Recommendations/MSP Amendments
Staff member Wempe referred to page 24 of the staff report where the 14 locations of the Master Street
Plan amendments were listed. He said some of those we are not recommending any change from what
is currently shown on the Master Street Plan.
Member Carpenter made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the
adoption of the Master Street Plan Update and amendments. Member Schmidt seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 5:0.
Member Schmidt said she'd like to thank staff for all their work especially all the extra meetings. She
said she and Member Campana were on the Citizen Committee years ago and that was an experience.
She thinks this one was a lot more detailed as far as learning about the Plan and going through
everything. She thinks staff went above and beyond in trying to make the Board "see all the pictures".
Chair Stockover said he'd like to thank all the Board members for hanging in there and going to all the
extra meetings.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Steve Dush, CDNS Director Butch Stockover, Chair
ORDINANCE NO . 036, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OF THE 2010 UPDATE OF CITY PLAN
WHEREAS , on March 18 , 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No . 051 , 1997 , the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code ") ; and
WHEREAS , at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS , City staff has embarked upon an effort known as `Flan Fort Collins' to
update the Citys comprehensive plan which effort has resulted in the suggestion that certain
amendments need to be made to the Land Use Code in order to implement Plan Fort Collins;
and
WHEREAS , in connection with the Plan Fort Collins project and the implementation
thereof, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and
identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made
recommendations to the Council regarding such issues ; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows :
Section 1 . That all references to the"Commercial District (C) zone district in the
Land Use Code are hereby changed to "General Commercial District (C-G) zone district.
Section 2 . That Section 3 . 6 . 1 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows :
3.6. 1 Master Street Plan
(A) Establishment of Master Street Plan. In order to accomplish the purposes of
this Land Use Code, the location and ultimate functional classification of
necessary arterial and collector streets and other transportation facilities have
been established on a map entitled " City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, "
dated August t 20, 49%February 15 , 2011 , as amended, which map is hereby
1
made a part of this Land Use Code by reference. The Master Street Plan is on
file with the City Clerk and the City Engineer.
Section 3 . That Section 3 . 9 . 1 (A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows :
3 . 9 . 1 Applicability and Purpose
(A) Applicability. These st,,., aafds apply
t ,, ,.plieatio,, ss fof deve-1 rffient within the
boundary of the 125 c „i,.,re Pla .The provisions contained in Sections 3 . 9 .2
through 3 . 9 . 11 shall apply to applications for development within the boundary
of the I-25 Subarea Plan, and, to the extent that such provisions regulate
Activity Centers, they shall also apply to the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor
Activity Center; and the provisions contained in Section 3 . 9 . 12 shall apply only
to the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor Activity Center.
Section 4 . That Article 3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Division 3 . 9 . 12 which reads in its entirety as follows :
3.9. 12 Corridor Activity Center Design Standards
(A) On any exterior building that is visible from a public right-of-way,
natural stone, synthetic stone, brick, and concrete masonry units that
are textured or split face, solely or in combination, shall be applied to
cover from grade to the top of the entry feature of such elevation, or if
there is no entry feature on any particular elevation, to a height that
would be equivalent to the top of the first floor. Materials such as
synthetic stucco (E. I . F . S .), smooth-face block or tilt-up concrete with
applied texturing are prohibited.
(B) A roof pitch shall be required for buildings containing less than twenty
five thousand (25 ,000) square feet and having three (3 ) stories or less .
In cases where mechanical equipment must be mounted on the roof, a
sloping mansard roof shall be allowed.
(C) The maximum building height shall be ninety (90) feet.
(D) All freestanding signs shall be ground signs and shall be limited to a
maximum height of fourteen ( 14) feet along and perpendicular to I-25
and twelve ( 12) feet along and perpendicular to all other streets . Such
ground signs shall be subject to all other requirements in Section 3 . 8 . 7 .
2
Section 5 . That Section 4 . 5 (B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
3 . Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the
following uses : mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores wit
l3
less than five thousand (5 ,000) square
foot of
building
u ldin r f....tpfiat
tea; convenience retail stores ; personal and business service
shops ; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial
services and clinics ,
square feet of building fotpr-int afea; community facilities;
neighborhood support/recreation facilities ; schools ; child care
centers ; and places of worship or assembly.
Section 6 . That Section 4 . 5 (D)( 1 )(2) and (3 ) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows :
(D) Land Use Standards.
( 1 ) Density.
(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average
density of five (5)four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential
land, except that residential developments (whether overall
development plans or project development plans) containing twenty
(20) acres or less and leemed inthe area defined as " iMfi " area
rood not
eomv.ly with the requirement
of
this subparagraph
ubparngrap (a)shall
have an overall minimum average density of three (3 ) dwelling
units per net acre of residential land.
(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole
shall be l P_ nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre of residential
land, except that affordable housing projects (whether approved
pursuant to overall development plans or project development
plans) containing ten ( 10) acres or less may attain a maximum
density, taken as a whole, of twelve ( 12) dwellings units per gross
acre of residential land.
(c) The maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase
development plan shall be twelve ( 12) dwelling units per gross acre
of residential land, and the maximum density of any portion of a
phase containing a grouping of two (2) or more multi-family
3
structures shall be twelve ( 12) dwelling units per gross acre of
residential land.
(2) Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in
any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible,
depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the
following minimum standards shall be met:
(a) A minimum of two (2)three (3) housing types shall be required on
any project development plan containing thifty -(30)twenty (20)
acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased overall
development; and a minimum of tlfee (3 )four (4) housing types
shall be required on any such project development plan containing
forty five (^ "thirty (30) acres or more.
(b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions,
garage placement, Llot sizes and lot dimensions shall be
significantly and substantially varied for- diffe
rent housing type to
avoid repetitive rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes . For
example, providing distinct single-family detached dwellings or
two-family dwellings larger- housing types on larger lots afva
^tea and on corners. and providing small lot single-family
dwellings on Ssmaller lots abutting common open spaces fronting
on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement. are
pNlpN /fir
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this
requirement:
1 . Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages .
472 Standard lot Single-family detached dwellings (lots eonta ning
ixtheus&fid [6 , 000 s . uar-e Zeo�e fe)with front or side
loaded garages . AL11 V
23 . Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less
than six *�, ,, , � ,, a [6 ,000] four thousand [4,000] square feet) or
with lot frontages of forty (40) feet or less) if there is a
difference of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between
the average lot size for small lot single-family detached
dwellings and the average lot size for single-family detached
dwellings with front or side loaded garages .
-34 . Two- family dwellings .
45 . Single-family attached dwellings .
4
-6. Mixed-use dwelling units.
67 . Multi-family dwellings (limited to eight [9]twelve [ 12]
dwelling units per building) ;
-78 . Mobile home parks .
(d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than nitw4y
(90)eighty (80) percent or less than five (5) percent of the total
number of dwelling units . if single family detaehed dwellings afe
the only housing t)Tes ineludedthe mix, then the difference
between the aver-age lot size for- eaeh t�Lpe of single family detae
&.Are- 11ing shag be at.
bast. o*e. thousand (2 ,000)
square
(3) Neighborhood Centers.
(c) Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include
two (2) or more of the following uses : mixed-use dwelling units;
community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities;
schools; child care centers ; places of worship or assembly;
convenience retail stores ; retail stores, offices, financial services
and clinics with less than five thousand (5 ,000) square feet of
building footprint area; personal or business service shops ; standard
or fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through
facilities) ; small animal veterinary clinics ; convenience retail stores
with fuel sales that are at least three quarter (3/4) miles from any
other such use and from any gasoline station; and artisan or
photography studios or galleries . No drive-in facilities shall be
permitted. A neighborhood center shall be a S axim �Lllot
exceed five (5) acres in size, excluding such portion of the
neighborhood center which is composed of a school, park, place of
worship and assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in
subparagraph (e) of this Section.
Section 7 . That Section 4 . 6(D)( 1 ) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows :
( 1 ) Density. Residential developments in the Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of
twelve ( 12) dwelling units per net acre of residential land except that
residential developments (whether approved pursuant to overall
5
development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20)
acres or less and leeatea in the infil Area
shall have an overall minimum
average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net acre of residential
land. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to mixed-use
dwellings in multistory mixed-use buildings .
Section 8 . That Section 4 .21 (B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows :
(B) Permitted Uses.
( 1 ) The following uses are permitted in the C District, subject to basic
development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are
part of an approved site-specific development plan:
(a)(a) Aeeessory/Miseellaneous Uses
(ba) Any use authorized pursuant to a site-specific development plan
that was processed and approved either in compliance with the
Zoning Code in effect on March 27 , 1997, or in compliance with
this Land Use Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor
subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided
that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site-specific development plan.
(eb) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone
district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property
pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on
March 27, 1997 ; and which physically existed upon such parcel on
March 27, 1997 ; provided, however, that such existing use shall
constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
(d)institutional/ rilc/P„ b defined 1 1 1
par-ks as
Policy Plan.
(ee)Res '�Itia Uses l l l (� \ (�
2 .
1� (FyJ 11V Extra
!S/�/(��11paney r-efA l�l 1Neusen SS 1 � N 11T1S 0 ( G \ Of feI f N tefl titS
/ Shelters for yietlmn o domestie vie enee
(f Commercial/Retail Usesi
1 N4ediea maf 11 an disperl &af
(2)
administrative rev ewffhe following uses are permitted in subdistricts of
the C-G District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR),
Administrative (Type 1 ) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2)
Review as specifically identified on the chart below:
(a) Residential Uses:
2 . Two family dwellings .
3 . Multi family dwellings .
4. Gfou l homes .
5 . Extra eeeupaney with more than Ave (5) teflaft4s-.
6 . Mixed use dwellings.
1 . Pams , r-ecfeation and Qthefopen lands, exeept neigh fhoo
par-ks Ets defined by the Parks and Reer-eation Pohey Plan.
7 Mino f public
faeil glen
4. Transit chit facilities without
ut repair or a4wnire7
1 Trod and
n bfeakf st establishments .
7
2 Standard an fast food
rontniirn Ntn (witho t dfiye 1N or drive
through
ro g 1`ne111t10n ) 1 [S fuel
2 I onyenieft e r0tn11 stofeP without
fuel sales .
10P
4 • GO. x oN ; oN o vot ; l stems with f , ol n ., lon
5 .
Do�'r�c and ad business se fyiiroc�hops
6 . Of fie fiiiCaiIC�JC�iC�i T'CCnd eiliiie T
7 Artisan andphotography studios andgalleries
4 Retail esta .l , shffleNtn
n Detail stores witl-. ohielo aorta riNn
1 1 V miNor r air sorwi � n a mr 4 o establish
Tim i �nnvrT€�3zsx�acr-rrE�l cC�iz'�3C�€$ rsrr
ffiefits .
12 Di ix I ro it al establishments (without outdoor storage).
T
.
14 . Lodging
establishments .
15 . r/
Dr lleV 4.4.
TfA !A /Y 1.A,e k0 FS .
1 / /M /1 11
•
h T`�IINOrni hof On
17 ./am I �nn N0 'StMi. 1N (1
(� Health
T 11 1 Y 4 e l � and
mOmllernl ip /ill lll(1
20 . D1nNt nuts efies an 11 glee ouseP
22 . Clubs and lodge-s-.
/ l \ / 0ter1Nnr[ 1 fnn111 }1PP /1N /Y mmMll nRinffl 1 P.J44 , 1 ,. n
24 . Dog day nnro fnrilition .
8
/ G Dr T 1Nt shops .
(� l
26 . Food
eater- ng of sffi. ll f.00 Y pr-oll et NYON /l Yfl�l l�N .
27 . Small
Peale feeeptio /chiefs .
28 . 7N ,1 ,, Or- LoNNoIs
industrial Uses :
i linmete
Z . Wifeless teleeommuf ieatio facilities
7
7
the Planning and Zoning Boafd :
1 . Publie a private sehools , l*Ci�gco1YC TPefsiIieT
l
2 Community facilities
3 . Hospitals
4 . Majof publie facilities .
(b) C ,, .., mer-eral/Retail Uses:
1 . Dfi v e in festautunts .
7 Do f, t; a
Z . T afge retail establishments .
7
4 . Veh ele e�e� a -. .. Nzieing and mamteiiane o�-
fnefits .
9
< Veh e1e and
boat sales
and
leasing
establishments
with outdoof
6 Eineloser1 mini stofa e
Q Par-king
lots and
par-king gafa res (as n p f neip l usel
10 . Unlimited
indoor reereatienel linen and
feei itien
W .1 T. r. 4ei4ai ment f edit en and theaters .
12 .
Exhibit hells
13 . Day shelter-s, provided that they do not e�ieeed ten thousand
/l 1 l
( 10,000) and nquafe feet nrl afe l within
ith n on0 thousand
4NH00
i
Tf nsfo f4 Monte
16 . 125
lletiyit I een4AYn -
1 7 ( utdoor rimnhit eatefs
T7
1 Composting f edit en
General
Land Use I=25/SH 392 Commercial
(CAC) District
C-G
A. Residential
Extra Occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer Not permitted BDR
tenants
Shelters for victims of domestic violence Not permitted BDR
Mixed-use residential Type l Type l
Multi-family mixed use Type 1 Type 1
Group homes Type l Type l
10
Single-family attached dwellings Not permitted Type 1
Two-family dwellings Not permitted Type 1
Extra Occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) Not permitted Type 1
tenants
B . Instltutlonal/Civic/Public
Neighborhood Parks (as defined by Parks Policy Plan) Not permitted BDR
Parks, Recreation and other Open Lands Not permitted Type 1
Hospitals Type 2 Type 2
Schools-Private/Vocational Colleges Type 2 Type 2
Minor public facilities Not permitted Type 1
Places of worship or assembly Not permitted Type 1
Transit facilities without repair or storage Not permitted Type 1
Community Facilities Not permitted Type 2
Major Public Facilities Not permitted Type 2
C. Commercial/Retail
Lodging Type 1 Type 1
Retail Establishment (under 25 ,000 s . ft) Type l Type l
Large Retail Establishment (25 ,000 s . ft. +) Type l Type 2
Offices and Financial Services Type l Type l
Personal/Business Service Shops Type 2 Type 1
Medical Centers/Clinics Type 2 Type 1
Long Term Care Facilities Type 2 Type 2
Health Club Type 2 Type l
Small Scale Recreational Events Center Type 2 Type l
Unlimited Indoor Recreation Type 2 Type 2
Entertainment Facilities/Theaters Type 2 Type 2
Standard Restaurant Type 2 Type l
Drive Thru Restaurants Type 2 Type 2
Fast Food Restaurants Type 2 Type l
Grocery/Supermarket Type 2 Type 2
Convenience Store with Fuel Sales Type 2 Type l
Medical Marijuana Dispensary Not permitted BDR
Bed and Breakfast Establishments Not permitted Type 1
Convenience Retail Stores without Fuel Sales Not permitted Type 1
Personal and Business Service Shops Not permitted Type 1
Artisan and Photography Studios and Galleries Not permitted Type 1
Vehicle Minor Repair, Servicing and Maintenance
Not permitted Type 1
Establishments
Limited Indoor Recreation Not permitted Type 1
Retail Stores with Vehicle Servicing Not permitted Type 1
Frozen Food Lockers Not permitted Type 1
Funeral Homes Not permitted Type 1
Gasoline Sales Not permitted Type 1
Open-Air Farmers Market Not permitted Type 1
Plant Nurseries and Greenhouses Not permitted Type 1
Plumbing, Electrical and Carpenter Shops Not permitted Type 1
11
Clubs and Lodges Not permitted Type 1
Veterinary Facilities and Small Animal Clinics Not permitted Type 1
Dog Day-Care Facilities Not permitted Type 1
Print Shops Not permitted Type 1
Food Catering or Small Food Product Preparation Not permitted Type 1
Indoor Kennels Not permitted Type 1
Drive — In Restaurants Not permitted Type 2
Recreational Uses Not permitted Type 2
Vehicle Major Repair, Servicing and Maintenance Not permitted Type 2
Establishments
Vehicle and Boat Sales and Leasing Establishments with Not permitted Type 2
Outdoor Storage
Enclosed Mini-Storage Not permitted Type 2
Retail and Supply Yard Establishments with Outdoor Storage Not permitted Type 2
Parking Lots and Parking Garages Not permitted Type 2
Child Care Centers Not permitted Type 2
I-25 Activity Centers Not permitted Type 2
Day Shelters < 10,000 square feet and located within 1 ,320' of Not permitted Type 2
a Transfort Route.
D. Industrial Uses
Workshop and Small Custom Industry Not permitted Type 1
Composting Facilities Not permitted Type 2
E. Accessory — Misc.
Wireless Telecommunication Equipment (not Type 2 Type 1
freestanding monopoles)
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Not permitted Type 1
Satellite Dish Antennas Greater than 39" in diameter Not permitted Type 1
Accessory buildings BDR BDR
Accessory uses BDR BDR
Section 9 . That Section 4 .21 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (H) which reads in its entirety as follows :
(H) Development standards for the I-25/State Highway 392 Corridor
Activity Center. Development located within the I-25/State Highway
392 Corridor Activity Center (see Figure ) shall be subject to the
requirements contained in 3 . 9 . 12 .
12
125 - State HWY 392 Interchange
oMdor ctjvhy Center
ache La ud €? ry
{yyyyyy
r.�
r
�4
Fossil Creek Reservi3ir
'-n
no
352 -
`� 5 y
'yy
6M 1 ,201 C
Fcat
13
Section 10 . That Section 5 . 1 . 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
deletion of the definition`Infill Area " as follows :
14
i
City of Fort Collins
Infill Area
z
N VS HWY 287 UNTY RD 52
COUNTRY CLUB RD '..
-iW WILOX LN I_
MO
W VINE DR E VINE DR
_ LAP AVE
AVE j
F9L
' W4IULEERRY ST
SPECT RD
s
E DRAKE RD
n
Z
W HORSE OOTH RD
Op
WHARMONY RD . . . .. . _ .
N
Legend
, ;. , InfillArea 0 0. 5 1 2
Miles
15
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1 st day of
March, A.D . 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the 22nd day of March, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 22nd day of March, A.D . 2011 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
16
ORDINANCE NO. 037, 2010
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
"COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C)" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-G)"
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
revising the zoning map; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing,the City Council has considered revising the
zoning map by changing the name ofthe"Commercial District(C)"to"General Commercial District
(C-G)'; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has further determined that the proposed revision is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan and is made in order to implement the comprehensive plan date
known as "Plan Fort Collins".
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the name of the"Commercial District(C)"to "General Commercial District
(C-G)"
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of
March, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2011 -023
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR AREA PLAN, THE
MOUNTAIN VISTA SUBAREA PLAN AND THE NORTHWEST SUBAREA
PLAN TO COMPORT WITH THE 2010 UPDATE OF THE CITY ' S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KNOWN AS "PLAN FORT COLLINS"
WHEREAS , on February 18, 1997 , the City Council adopted the comprehensive plan of the
City known as "City Plan"; and
WHEREAS , on May 4, 2004, the City Council adopted an update to City Plan; and
WHEREAS , on February 15 , 2011 , the City Council adopted another, more comprehensive
update to City Plan known as "Plan Fort Collins" ; and
WHEREAS , the "Plan Fort Collins" update of City Plan has resulted in the need for certain
amendments to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the
Northwest Subarea Plan in order to address inconsistencies in those subarea plans with the updated
City Plan as it relates to the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) density standards so
as to ensure that the density numbers for the L-M-N zone district as referenced in the subarea plans
are consistent with the density numbers in the newly updated City Plan; and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the proposed amendments to the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the Northwest Subarea Plan
recommended by City staff and have made favorable recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has determined that the recommended changes to the subarea
plans are in the best interests of the City and its citizens .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows :
Section 1 . That the paragraph entitled "FC-LUF-3 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods of Chapter
2 of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (as amended) is hereby amended to read as follows :
FC-LUF-3 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. (Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods) . These neighborhoods will consist of a mix of housing types
near parks, schools, and a neighborhood center. The density will be a minimum
overall average of either 3 or-5 dwelling units per net acre of residential land.
The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole will be, ith at
overall tnaxinmm of 9 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. The
maximum density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan or an
affordable housing project shall be, and a maxinmm o 12 dwelling units per
gross acre of residential land f6r any singh. phase if located within the TDU
Receiving Area. This residential classification will require design and
development standards agreed upon by both Larimer County and the City of Fort
Collins . The method of calculating density is shown in Appendix A.
Future development within the mixed-use neighborhood designation outside of
the TDU Receiving Area (including north of Kechter Road, and west of
Timberline Road), will have an overall minimum average density of 4 dwelling
units per net acre of residential land, and an overall maximum density of 9
dwelling units per gross acre, of residential land. The maximum density of any
phase in a multiple-phase development plan or an affordable housing project shall
be 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
Section 2 . That the paragraph entitled "Mixed-Use Neighborhoods" contained in
Chapter 4 of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan is hereby amended to read as follows :
MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOODS
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) represents the largest land use in
the Framework Plan ( 1 ,298 acres) . These neighborhoods will provide for the
majority of future residential growth in northeast Fort Collins . The character of
these neighborhoods reflects a variety of housing types, predominantly single-
family, with supporting parks, schools, trails, and open lands
average density of five dwelling units per acre . New LMN development will
have an overall minimum average density of 4 dwelling units per net acre of
residential land. fn addition, these futuTe neighborhoods will provide a transitir
from existing harimer eounty development to the west, and higher density
neighborhoods, connnercial, employment, and industrial uses farther to the east. "
Section 3 . That the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, Chapter 5 , Principles and Policies
is hereby amended by the addition of a new policy MV-LU- 1 . 7 which reads in its entirety as
follows :
Policy MV-LU4 .7
The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will have a range of density with an
overall minimum average density of 4 dwelling units per net acre of residential
land. For any development plan, an overall maximum density of 9 dwelling units
per gross acre and 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land for any
phase of a multiple-phase development or an affordable housing project will be
applied.
Section 4 . That the Low-Density Mixed-Use Residential section of the Northwest
Subarea Plan, Chapter 3 , is hereby amended to read as follows :
-2-
LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL
Where it Applies
The Framework Plan designates the area generally east of Sunset Street and south
of Vine Drive as Low Density Mixed-Use Residential . Some lands are currently
in city limits and have City zoning; others are in unincorporated Larimer County
and would be zoned by the City if and when they are annexed (i. e . , when
development is proposed) . The intent is to ensure that future development is
compatible with the integrity and density of existing neighborhoods, as
determined by location and infill parcel size . Future development density may be
up to 8 units per acre ov Future overall density may range between 4 dwelling
units per net acre of residential land and up to 9 dwelling units per gross acre of
residential land (or up to 12 units per gross acre of residential land for any phase
of a multiple-phase development or an affordable housing project) . The permitted
density depends on each specific location as described in the sections below.
What Low Density Mixed-Use Residential Allows
Larger parcels will be zoned, upon annexation, as Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (LMN) allowing up to eight ($)nine (9) dwelling units per gross
acre of residential land (or up to 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential
land for any phase of a multiple-phase development or an affordable housing
project) .
Current Underlying Zoning
The Low Density Mixed-Use category corresponds with two different City zoning
districts :
1 . Residential Low (RL) district in some existing single family areas , which
allows density up to five (5 ) dwelling units per gross acre (or minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet) ; and,
2 . Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) district, which allows
housing up to eight (8) units per acre, including single fainily hornes and
townhornes with no mininmrn lot size and also sorne corrmiercial
developmen an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling
units per net acre of residential land, with a maximum density of nine (9)
-3 -
dwelling units per gross acre of residential landtownhomes with no
minitymm lot size and also some commercial development.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 1st
day of March, A.D . 2011 .
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
-4-