HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2001 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 107, 2001, MAKING V AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 19
DATE: June 5, 2001
. FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Ted Shepard
SUBJECT:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2001, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the spring
biannual update of the Land Use Code. On May 17, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board voted
7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Council.
I&KGROUND:
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March of 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a biannual basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that
have been identified in the preceding six months. The proposed changes are offered in order to
resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and "user-
friendliness" of the Code.
Following is a brief update of one issue and a synopsis of two substantive issues. Attachments
include a summary of all the issues as well as the draft Ordinance itself.
UPDATE:
Due to the need for further analysis, staff has continued until fall the proposed change that would
have increased the turning radii for the emergency fire access drives from 20 feet inside and 40
feet outside to 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. There are two issues.
First, there is a concern that the proposed larger radii do not allow for a smooth transition along
the curb line for some of the streets recently approved in the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. Second, there is a concern that additional input is needed from the development
community which would be required to construct the larger cul-de-sacs which would go from 80
feet to 100 feet in diameter. Staff is keenly aware of the needs of Poudre Fire Authority and will
continue to work on this issue over the next several months.
DATE: June 5, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 19
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:
I. Revise the Size Limitation on Places of Worship or Assembly in L-M-N Zone
In the L-M-N district, Places of Worship or Assembly would be allowed to be exempt from the
building footprint size cap of 20,000 square feet just like Schools. The proposed change would
allow such uses to achieve a building footprint size of up to 25,000 square feet as a Type One
(administrative) permitted use. Any such use over 25,000 square foot building footprint would
be a Type Two (Planning and Zoning Board)permitted use.
Problem statement:
Presently, in the L-M-N district, all Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings cannot exceed a
building footprint size of 20,000 square feet with the exception of Schools. Places of Worship or
Assembly have consistently been included along with Schools as a component of neighborhoods
but are capped in size. New Places of Worship or Assembly, like Schools, are often larger than
20,000 square feet with no apparent detriment to the quality of the neighborhood. In addition, a
field survey revealed that many existing neighborhoods include churches over 20,000 square
feet.
Proposed Solution:
Places of Worship or Assembly, like Schools, would become exempt from this size cap but
would be allowed up to a building footprint size of only 25,000 square feet as a Type One
(administrative) permitted use. Any such land use with a building footprint over 25,000 square
feet would be a Type Two (Planning and Zoning Board) permitted use. Compatibility issues are
addressed in other areas of the Land Use Code.
P & Z Board:
The Board recommended the maximum size for a Type One permitted use be capped at a
building footprint size of 20,000 square feet.
Council Growth Management Committee:
The Committee recommended the maximum building footprint size for a Type One permitted
use be capped at 25,000 square feet. If over 25,000 square feet, then such use would be a Type
Two permitted use.
2. Amend the Definition of Parks Recreation and Open Lands
The present definition of Parks, Recreation and Open Lands refers to publicly-owned facilities
only and excludes private facilities.
DATE: June 5, 2001 3 ITEM NUMBER: 19
Problem Statement:
The Land Use Code allows Parks, Recreation, and Open Lands in all zones. But under the
present definition, only publicly-owned Parks, Recreation and Open Lands are permitted even
though private/non-profit parks and recreation facilities are an identical land use. Private
facilities were permitted under Zoning Code in place from 1965 to 1997. The omission of
private facilities into the Land Use Code was an oversight. This means organizations like the
Fort Collins Soccer Club, Fort Collins Little League Baseball Club, Fort Collins Church Athletic
Association and the like are not allowed to construct their own facilities even though their
function is exactly the same as a public facility. All operational characteristics would continue
to be governed by existing Land Use Code standards.
Proposed Solution:
Add the clause "whether such facilities are owned or operated by the city or by another not-for-
profit organization"to the definition.
P & Z Board:
The Board voted 4-3 to retain this proposed Land Use Code revision and directed staff to
research potential impacts on the U-E (Urban Estate), R-F (Foothills Residential) and river zones
(C-C-R and R-D-R).
Council Growth Management Committee:
The Committee agreed that, in terms of a land use per se, there is no distinction between public
and private facilities. The primary differences are found in operational characteristics (parking,
lights, noise and hours of operation) which are governed by other General Development
Standards as found in Article 3 of the Land Use Code.
The concern over operational characteristics has been duly noted by staff. The impact on the
foothills and river zones will be analyzed. Input from private parties and the City's Parks and
Recreation Department will be sought. Any appropriate changes will be considered in the Fall.
ORDINANCE NO. 12001
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by Ordinance No. 51, 1997, the Council of the City of
Fort Collins adopted 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 Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments,
not only for the purpose of clarification and convection 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, 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 Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments which
have been proposed 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 as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding a
new subsection 1.4.10 to read as follows:
1.4.10 Rules for Measuring Distances
When a distance is required between uses as forth in Articles 3 or 4,
the distartee shall be measured in a straight line from the closest point on
the boundazj,.` a of one.property to,the closest point on the boundary line
of the othcproppejr
Section 2. That Section 2.1.4(A)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(3) The owner of the property has obtained permission from the
appropriate decision maker to amend the €iaatapproved
development plan in accordance with Division 2.2, in which event
the property shall be developed according to the amended plan;
Section 3. That Section 2.2.10(A)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
. addition of a new subparagraph(e)to read as follows:
e " noes not .resuitui$Enewtibuildings
a��mipro`vemen r s'`itch as p8
mg
sre Proposed` to be located
Outside th�$oundaries of thb approved site specific
degeloptneat plan,
Section 4. That Section 2.2.10(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph(e)to read as follows:
amendment 4does not result in"newbui#dmga,
fttldu �ditions, or site improvements;=such a$ parktug
lla l F' � p' #hat are' ro osed�to..be .located
Iots� and��tandsca ptg: , P P . ,. : � ;
outside ,�jeg-� boundaries -of the approvi d `site specific
devvetopm h p#an.
Section 5. That Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the city for the
review and approval of a development plan must be diligently pursued and
processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within ninety (90)
days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the city on
any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for
approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised
submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the
city. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not
filed within said period of time, the development application shall
automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant
one (1) extension of the foregoing ninety-day requirement, which
extension may not exceed .�.c�)sixty (60) days in length,and one (1)
additional extension which may,not exceed thirty (30) days in length.
This subsection (A) shall apply to applications which are, or have been,
filed pursuant to this Land Use Code and to applications which are, or
have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the city for the development of
land prior to the adoption of this Land Use Code.
Section 6. That Section 2.3.2(11)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the
permitted uses and applicable zone district standards (Article 4) of
all zone districts contained within the boundaries of the overall
development plan.':The`Plan shall also be consistent with any
zggkcablszone district �'standards '(Article 4) and general
development standards (Article 3) that'can be applied at the level
of deter#required for an oyerail development plan submittal. If the
2
overall development plan contains any land within the M-M-N, C-
C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block
size requirements for those districts.
Section 7. That Section 2.3.2(H)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(4) The overall development plan shall conform to the Master Street
Plan requirements and the street pattem/connectivity standards
both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as required
pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3(A) through (F). The overall
development plan shall identify appropriate transportation
improvements to he constructed and shail.`demonstrate how the
develapnpetit,G wheti 'fully constructed,;willso--conform to the
Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in
Section 3.6.4.
Section 8. That Section 2.8.2(l)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(1) the plan as submitted will advance-o; pmtactpromote the gu1ic
interests-aadgeneral purposes of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested; or
Section 9. That Section 2.9.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.9.2. Applicability
Any and all amendments to the text of this Land Use Code and any and all
changes to the Zoning Map must be processed in accordance with this Division.
Commencing one (1) year after the effective date of this Land Use Code,
amendments to the Zoning Map shall be processed only twice per calendar year
pursuant to the submittal and hearing date schedule established pursuant to
Section 2.2.3(D); provided, however, that this limitation shall not apply to
petitions for amendments to the Zoning Map initiated by the owners of properties
in the Transition District, which petitions shall be governed by the provisions of
Section 4.9(B)(4-2), or to initial Zoning Map amendments following annexation,
or to Zoning Map amendments which are founded upon the adoption and
implementation of a subarea plan. Only the Council may, after recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Board, adopt an ordinance amending the text of this
Land Use Code or the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of this
Division.
3
Section 10. That the title of Section 2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 2.10 HARM W VARIANCES(BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS)
Section 11. That Section 2.10.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.10.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose and-wkGability of a w a w is -optaigled in rt,apta; 0
tk Zw-Cedaof this* ni u� ri 0,in specific cases,vanances from the
terms of Arttcles �r; it pligiblk Articles,I" through Iv of the
Transittonalal andv l7 gnla ons However, this haadaliip—variance procedure
shall apply-only to approved site specific development plans or to properties that
were developed pursuant to a Building Permit review or use-by-right under prior
law and shall only authorize a variance from the terms of Articles 3 and 4 as
provided in this Division. It shall not authorize a change in use other than to a use
that is allowed subject to Building Permit preview. Also, the lads-variance
shall not be used for overall development plans, project development plans or
final plans which are pending approval at the time that the request for the
hardabip-variance is filed. The process to be used for such pending development
applications is the procedure established in Division 2.8 (Modification of
Standards).
Section 12. That the title and opening paragraph of Section 2.10.2 of the Land Use Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.10.2 Ua Variance Review Procedures
A ka&dship.-variance shall be processed according to, in compliance with and
subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the
Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12,
inclusive) as follows:
Section 13. That Section 2.10.2(C) of the La::d Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents
required for ha;dship—variances as described in the development
application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may
waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts
and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement
would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary
for the full and complete review of the application.
4
Section 14. That Section 2.10.2(G) Step 7(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for
Section 2.2.7(A), the Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 2 of
the City Code, shall review, consider and approve, approve with
conditions, or deny applications for hasdship—variance based on its
compliance with all of the standards contained in Step 8.
Section 15. That Section 2.10.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(2) the proposal as submitted will remote the
pub1ic-ipAmsts-m4general purposes of the standard for which the
variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal
which complies with the standard for which the variance is
requested.
Section 16. That Section 2.10.2(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any hardship-variance which applies to the issuance of a
Building Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such
variance was granted, unless all necessary permits have been obtained;
provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Zoning Board of
Appeals may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and
necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, but in no event
shall the period of time for obtaining all necessary permits under a
hardship-variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six-
month extension may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Section 17. That Section 3.2.1(D)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(4) Tree Species and .Minimum Sizes. The Director shall provide a
recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the
requirements for landscape plans, including approved canopy
shade trees that may be used as street trees. The following
minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in
subparagraph(5)below):
5
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent
Evergreen Tree 6.0'height balled and burlapped or equivalent
Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent
Shrubs 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design
intent
Canopy Shade Tree
as a street tree on a
Residential Local
Street Aonly 1.25" caliper container or equivalent
Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the
approved landscape plan are exempt from the foregoing size requirements.
Section 18. That Section 3.2.1(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph(5)to read as follows:
(5) Reduced =Minimum Sues for Affordable Housing Projects. In any
c . x ,+
aftoridatile housmgprolect,`thefollowing minimum sizes:shall be required:
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree 1.0" caliper container, or equivalent
Evergreen Tree 4.0'height container.or,equivalent
Or ainei tat Tree 1.01'caliper container`or,equivalent
Shrubs 1 gallon
Canopy Shade Tree
as a street tree on a
Local or Collector
Street only 1.2511caliper container or equivalent
Section 19. That Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(c) Marking. Every handicap parking space 3ecated-iPaAdns u-a
1 ♦ that ♦ 11.n Five (54 40% 1 r....w:..
sgasasshall be identified by a sign, centered between three
(3) feet and five (5) feet above the parking surface, at the
head of the parking space. The sign shall include the
international symbol of accessibility and state RESERVED,
or equivalent language.
Section 20. That Section 3.3.2(F)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
6
(2) Costs and Reimbursements. When any person constructs a street, sidewalk, alley
or path through undeveloped areas or areas that may be redeveloped to serve the
property or constructs such improvements along the perimeter of the property, the
entire cost of such construction (including right-of-way acquisition) shall be the
responsibility of such person. If, within twelve (12) months of the completion
and acceptance by the city of such improvements, the developer installing such
improvements has entered into a reimbursement agreement with the city in the
manner prescribed by this Section, then, at the time such property is developed or
redeveloped and access to such improvements is accomplished, the city may
collect a charge per front foot from the abutting developer prior to the issuance of
any Building Permits for the abutting property; provided, however, that the city
shall not attempt to make such collection unless the reimbursement agreement has
been timely and properly prepared, executed and delivered to the city. If the front
foot charge is collected, the city shall reimburse the installing developer to the
extent of such collection after deducting a service charge of three (3) percent to
cover administrative costs. All costs for the construction (including right-of-way
acquisition) of street improvements must be fully paid by the installing developer
before such person shall be entitled to reimbursement under any agreement
established hereunder. The amount of the reimbursement assessed by the city for
each adjacent property as it develops shall be based on (1) the fair market value
(as detemuned by ,the city) .of any right-of-way acquired by the installing
developer thati was needed for, and is directly attributable`to,the improvements,
a_
afid a the original cost of design and construction of the improvements plus an
adjustment for inflation based on the construction cost index for Denver,
Colorado, as published monthly by "Engineering News Record." In no case shall
the front foot charge reflect less than the original cost as submitted by the
installing developer and approved by the City Engineer. The original cost of the
right-of-way and design and construction shall mean the cost of right-of-way
acquisition, financing, engineering, construction and any other costs actually
incurred which are directly attributable to the improvements, including any costs
incurred for the formation or administration of a special improvement district.
The city's obligation to reimburse the installing developer shall be contingent
upon the city's actual collection of the front foot charge from the abutting
developer. In order to obtain approval of a reimbursement agreement from the
city, the installing developer shall provide the City Engineer with copies of the
following, after acceptance of the improvements:
(a) real estate closing documents and/or appraisals ,or other documents
V11.showingito'the satisfaction of the city the fair-market value,of the right-of-
way fortba improvements
(ab) an invoice from the installing developer's engineer for any fee assessed on
the project;
(bc) the contractor's application for final payment approved by the installing
developer's engineer;
( a letter from the installing developer and/or contractor certifying that final
payment has been received by the contractor;
(de) a letter from the installing developer and/or engineer certifying that final
payment of engineering fees has been made;
(at) a map prepared by a licensed engineer or surveyor which shows:
1. the location of the improvements constructed;
2. the name of the owner of each property which has frontage along
the improvements;
3. the frontage of each property abutting the improvements, together
with the assessment due based on the original costs;
4. the acreage and parcel number of each property abutting the
improvements;
5. a reference to the book, page and reception number from the
records of the county Clerk and. Recorder where the information
for each property was obtained; and
6. any other information deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Any right to reimbursement pursuant to this provision shall not exceed a period of
ten (10) years from the acceptance by the city of the street improvements. The
City Council may approve extensions of the reimbursement agreement for
additional ten-year periods. No such reimbursement shall be made unless the
person entitled to reimbursement has fully satisfied his or her obligations under
any other reimbursement agreements with the city.
Section 21. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.4 Noise and Vibration
The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise
generated on the property will not w,�—the m i Wa ^^'c" leAwl "
violate the noise, regulations contained in the city's Noise Control
. .
Ordinance (Ch(Chapter 20, Article 2IT of the City Code), and so that any vibration
created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at
any point along the property line. Noise generated by emergency vehicles and
airplanes shall be exempted from the requirements of this provision.
8
. Section 22. That Article 3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Division 3.4.9 to read as follows:
3.4.9 Promotion of Gonse' "lion
wuwmu'uw rawsnwmxu
o tY's water, sotl� eleciri and natural
k u.r a t ,X,
an p atecov i-a ent
4 'o ei 'has the
effoctto atq'� �vted,cfa�i ► afe"�9prbperlYfmCt tns enscape
°' ed flushanse {fi oac collectorsfi i 'o
�k
4
upon ag �estished` u),incthes, es (if located In backyards and if
47
completelX.,soreenet�fiV.mt vtew firom pub c streets Por odo%contco led compost
bins shall'bye n�l and a4id'xttd sll+not be enforceable4by anY Person or entity.
Section 23. That Section 3.5.1(D) of the Land Use Code be deleted in its entirety and
all subsequent subparagraphs be renumbered accordingly:
f —
and onWes Ph-U dare the ad,}araat shoat RY.Gop* a ..Tin...e.l in a.e
In A. rWal zone A:st.:..t a main cau-ma shall f..e .. e..tin.. . ..,lbxay
,th a .ike..t pedestrian e..tion to Q9 rucat with.. ;squir-ingall
Section 24. That Section 3.5.1(H)(1)(a)4. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
4. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures
greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in
which they are situated in terms of relative height,
height to mass, length to mass, and building or
structure scale to human scale. The transition
between any building or structure over forty (40)
feet in height and the alwiiiagadjacent
neighborhood shall not be abrupt.
Section 25. That Section 3.5.2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(C) Relationship of 1dipogr0wellings to
Streets and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a
primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to
the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary
entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with
no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a
9
street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are
permitted:
a 1, to`*twa ` 2 single''family'detached dwellings on an.)_ P._. .
mdivdual lbt'that has frontage on either a public or private
stree�i
(ab) A primary entrance may be up to three-hundred fifty (350)
feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and
opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as
a major walkway spine.
(bc) If a multifamily building has more than one (1) front
facade, and if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens
directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances
located on the other front facade(s) need not face a street
sidewalk or connecting walkway.
(2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or
more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or
doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full
arterial or has on-street parking.
Section 26. That Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) and (f) of the Land Use Code are hereby
amended to read as follows:
(e) The connection of a private drive with a public street shall
be made W a . using a "NOW D .:..o....
Afpreach!Lin accordance with city street standards.
(f) If drainage from a private drive is channeled or directed to
a public street, t 11 ' B ' d """ the
gublicrid—alkstioh drainage shall be in accordance with
citystieet staticlards.
Section 27. That Section 3.6.6 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.6.6 Emergency Access
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that emergency vehicles can
gain access to, and maneuver within, the project so that emergency
personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services without
delays.
10
(B) General Standard All developments shall provide adequate access for
emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and
emergency services.
neXgency�acCe irequirement ma}r be modified by the Fire
IvT 7 t t tpmcedures set forth to the Fire Code when
stnicturese provedwith automatic fire sprinkler systems. Such
raoih ' os ziiiay tnalttde.access distances Ionger, than one
hued & fifty„4150) feet; narrower roa3 widths, increased grade,
reduc�l tlunarounds and longer dead=:end distances.
(C) Building Placement. All portions of the exterior wall of the first story of
any structure must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a
public street (except major arterial streets) or an approved fire access road
in which fire apparatus can be maneuvered.
(D) Emergency Fire Access Roads.
(1) Emergency tifire access roads may be public streets (except arterial
streets) and alleys, panting lots, private streets or similar vehicular
access roads. Driveways serving detached, individual dwelling
units need not meet fire access road criteria if they do not exceed
one hundred(100) feet in length.
(2) The minimum unobstructed width of an emergency fire access
road shall be twenty (20) feet, except that upon the written
authorization of the fire chief, sixteen (16) feet may be approved
for residential local streets provided that such streets comply with
all other applicable requirements contained in the Fire Code.
(3) The minimum unobstructed width shall be thirty (30) feet for
access roads serving buildings three (3) stories or more in height
on at least one (1) side of the building. The building height shall
be measured from the access road grade.
(4) Emergency fire access 'roads may be used 'iri commercial and
mulh family projects when they,can be designed into the normal
traffic cuc on-pa erns. All emergency fiie;,access roads shall
conform to atl other eriiergency fire access road`criteria Approval
o£ ariy`emergency�Serc access road,shall be'contingent upon the
abiht3of, We�jemo�elicy fire�acce'ss� road;,to be. .maintained
conhiinou§ly and and all weatherConditiofis'arid must meet the
folloWm tc►immum additional requirements:
(a) the width musk be a minizu of,twenty(20)feet;
u
° „ '" 'be all;�veather
(a 8uirnust,be.capable mof supporting file-fighting
equipment;
(d) limtuig dut{iees, if employed, must be
(e)-A public
:
s � ed°` 9nd serv}eeabte=- before
. �,r �encemen�'no�;abova; pirid`eonstriiction
(� umar-adsDedd ends
l: Any dead-erid fire access road that exceeds one
hundred fit1 r(001 feet in length shall be provided with a
minimum eighty(80) foot diameter turnaround.
2 No.dead-end length for an emergency fire access
road shall exceed six hundred sixty(660) feet.if-dead-end
with' 1 4. ..4:....n 4n public &Moak
(&g) Turning Radius. The minimum turning radius for
eiiretgency, fire access roads and in parking lots shall be
twenty(20) feet inside and forty (40) feet outside.
(h) goad.Surface The surface,of all emergency fire access
roads shall lie of3an approved hard surface or compacted
road base capable of supparhr►gfully loaded fire apparatus.
Allsuraces;sbe mamtatnable m all�veather conditions,
nicld tsriotoyatAny bndges or cuIerts must
m
� Grass erete.and similar sofF
U rts"sll b`eno°�t`bi�ed".
() Easements. All'emergenay fire access roads shall have
pip(ierlrecorded'emergency access easements.
` Ce. The mmimum vertical clearance shall
A, Abe six(�inches.
(k urn°grade of an emergency.fire access
IIIII 'Percent :
12
(GE) Parking Control. Approved "No parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be
provided along curbs where parking could obstruct the minimum width
and turning radius. Curbs in these areas shall be painted red.
A All e,,.F.. eha11 he klUi ahie all vathe.
«Artie«. inGludLaS . mma;,a1 Any h.:dger
r.c 10 J@rip .te. .ere «A «:la oA a:zye
prQhibited
hmadm,j r< (66Q) fast a a sipglc point ..f a^Goss shall bepwjor
r h th he Ae vA «to the nn al r...ff... «lat:o
vems A 11 F. 1 ,.hallo «F.... ♦o all othezf:. aA G4t@ri-
Appw;,al f my F. 1 -hall he GopAiaoe«t upon the abil:ti, of the &4
t r h t A ti 1 A A all .. vathe. a..«A:tioar F"
laner, sep4ag sing!@ family p;ojaete wquks spwial.e..", and a1 h.,
r r\• t th gi Ad h 1 A r't. E «A .et ;meet the
A:.tlo..,:«o.«:«:«,...., aAAao«at .%14,i
• 11\ th 'Ath ...«.rt he a «.:«:«l'm of UA,e«w,()Q)f et.
(1) the e.,.F..e.««St he all nreathez
car
(3) rh su;faG@ must he rapahle of
o"iPmelgi
14\ any1' 'ti .4miger, 'f empWyed, must he a .eA
@' tse
/r \ i- 1 Gf 'i9mislimUme.t:dal GIO-MAGO
chall_bQ W;%GGm
(W) Fences. Fences that obstruct the hundred fifty(15Q)
foot access distance for thelaying of;the fire hose from the fire truck to the
sida orrealr atT�e structure shall be provided with gates.
geiceat.
13
(A ) Street Names. Street names shall not duplicate existing street names in
the city or the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District. Secondary streets
such as courts, lanes and ways may have the same name as the primary
street,provided they are connected directly to the primary street and are in
close proximity to each other. Street names in the same direction may
change only at arterial streets. Street layout shall incorporate the standard
north-south and east-west numbering system. R6*a4eEmergency fire
access roads shall be provided with approved street signs. (See also 97
ACOM&
(1) X"eme, W awear goads, t.waar-QuAws and Be end point nC
1. " as P24 nC anaVPrQ;'6d phased n oct n
iwAninow bli H t ' vote aa -onfkmsd by Usting in
A 't 1 nt pia rtne_ eHeet nl.,
neighb 6 A t A ten.pwai.c anee e11211 ...ent .,il nth" &0
!7\ All p;gjt 1. 11 1. a &Qm a ..ubli.. sUcat netwwk AA4%h
(66Q) fast &QM a single Point 09 accars- suffi-iGmt Qfz rite su"
(3) All raquire4 nalmd: g publi.. eHeete e1,211 he
Goastp—tie;6
HA -1, l t t tl, a ..ve ent c Ah :n thn r:;e COAe n,1,en
'.i .i 'th t ti fi.e sp;iQ le.e.,ete.+.e Q....1,
gdifi-ationy Imay iQ^IMd@ 1 sth a the gag d;o C.R.. F of
Section 28. That Section 3.7.2(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(B) Developments Outside the Urban Growth Area. No seaeaag
development application shall be accepted or approved as part of an
annexation petition if the proposed development is located outside the
Urban Growth Area.
Section 29. That Section 3.7.3(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
14
(F) Transportation APF Exception. Nominal Impact. For the purpose of the
transportation APF requirements contained in this Section, a proposed
development shall be deemed to have a nominal impact and shall not be subject to
the APF requirements for transportation if the development proposal generates
less than fifty (50) peak;fitite trips a-day-as defined by the Transportation Impact
Study guidelines maintained by the city.
Section 30. That Section 3.8.6(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(A) Residential group homes shall conform to the lot area and separation
requirements specified in the following table:
Maximum
Minimum
number of Additional lot Maximum
separation
residents area for each permissible
requirements
Zone excluding additional residents,
supervisors,for resident excluding between any other
minimum lot (square feet) supervisors group home
(feet)
size ee
U-E 3 2,000 8 1,500
R-L, N-C-L, H-C, 3 1,500 8 1,500
E,R-F
L-M-N, N-C-M, 6 750 8 1,000
R-D-R
N-C-B, D, C-N, 6 500 8 700
C-C-N, M-M-N,
N-C, C, C-C, C-L,
C-C-R
* The minimum separation distance required between group homes that are located
in different zone districts shzlll be the one that requires the greatest distance.
Section 31. That Section 3.8.6(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(B) Large group care facilities shall conform to the lot area and separation
requirements specified in the following table:
15
Maximum Minimum
number of Additional lot Maximum separation
residents areafor each permissible requirements
Zone excluding additional residents, between any other
supervisors,for resident excluding group home
minimum lot (squarefeet) supervisors (feet)•
size
L-M-N, N-C-M, 6 750 IS 1,000
R-D-R
N-C-B, D, C-N, 6 500 20** 700
C-C-N, M-M-N,
N-C, C, C-C, C-L,
C-C-R
• "` '&eparattorw distance required rbetween group homes
nu di `erenUzone districts `shalt„be the°,one that
ralutte thw'$reafest distauce,`il
•* The decision maker may determine a higher maximum number of
residents to be allowed to occupy the facility upon finding that the
facility as so occupied will satisfy the following criteria:
Section 32. That Section 3.8.7(E)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(2) Signs regulated under this Section shall also conform to any
locational requirements imposed by the decision maker as a
condition of the approval of the development plan. "-opt m to
Section 33. That Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (11) to read as follows and all subsequent subparagraphs be
renumbered accordingly:
Toeahonro£ arty fluslrwall sign shall be positioned to
harmomze% wRX"Ahe architectural character, of the
buldmgsto w1ll6h they are attached, ,including but not
liffii tawny}srb}ectron;°rglief,':cornice, column,£change of
u{jdmg matwat# or door opening._ Fiushwalf
° ,' + steal atigti` with other,such signs on the same
6iildulg,
Section 34. That Section 3.8.13(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
16
(B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner
or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude
any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same
building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication
facility/ei0pm* owners or lessees or employees thereof,and applicants
for tholoplans for_the installation of such faoilities/equipment,
shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless
telecommunication facilities and equipmen
+ ^ a -s Any apphcatton for the ap?mvatof a plan
for the installation of,wireless telecommunication Wilities npmbnt
shall:include docnmentahoYn of the appTxcatits' good, fat`th efforts`toward
such cdoperation
Section 35. That Section 4.4(B)(2)(b)l. of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1. Places of worship or assembly with a building footprint which does
not exceed a total of twenty five thousand(25,000) square feet.
Section 36. That Section 4.4(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 with less than five thousand (5,000)
square feet of gross—Ace;building footprint area;
convenience retail stores; personal and business
service shops; small animal veterinary facilities;
offices, financial services and clinics containing less
than five thousand (5,000) square feet of gpess
iWwbuilding footprint area; community facilities;
neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools,
child care centers; and places of worship or
assembly.
Section 37. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph 4. to read as follows:
4. ` Places ,on worship or assembly, with a,building
footprint. which exceeds a total of twenty five
thou§and(2S,QQo).square feet.
Section 38. That Section 4.4(D)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17
(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a
whole shall be eight (8) 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 and '^""'ea in `w T"I" A"a-may attain a maximum
density, taken as a whole, of twelve (12) dwellings units
per gross acre of residential land.
Section 39. That Section 4.4(D)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(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;
offices, financial services and clinics; personal or business
service shops; standard or fast food restaurants; small
animal veterinary clinics; and artisan or photography
studios or galleries. No drive-in facilities shall be
permitted. A neighborhood center shall be a maximum of
five (5) acres in size, excluding such portion of the
neighb&h'6od` center which is ;composed of a schools,
parks;'place ,'of worship and assembly and/or outdoor
spaces as defined in subparagraph(e)of this Section.
Section 40. That Section 4.4(E)(2)(b)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(b) Maximum Size. No building footprint shall exceed a total
of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, with the exception
of schools and places of worship and assembly.
Section 41. That Section 4.5(D)(3)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(3) Access to a park, central feature or gathering place. At least
ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects
greater than tvv'o (2);acres in,gross area shall be located within one
thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter ['/4] mile)
of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central
feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or
within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured
along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. Such
18
. parks, central features or gathering places shall contain one (1) or
more of the following uses:
(a) Public parks, recreation areas or other open lands.
(b) Privately-owned parks,meeting the following criteria:
1. Size. Tn,developmentra}gets greater than two.(2)
gro acres in ss area, Ssuch private parks must be a
minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. In
development: ro}its wtth "I', of,fwo.(2)
acres;or 1 xess st chapnvate parki-11A be 1fifi imam
,f, : A,
o€six'(opercent ofthe gross?site area;
2. Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure
settings formed by the street layout and pattern of
lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades
and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than
two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the
perimeter frontage of the park.
3. Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely
and easily accessible by pedestrians, and open to the
public.
4. Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple-use
turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic
tables, benches or other features for various age
groups to utilize.
5. Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in
the discretion of the city, be acquired by the city
(through dedication or purchase), or be privately-
owned and maintained by the developer or property
owners' association.
6. Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage
and detention functions to satisfy this requirement,
the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes
or gradients that conflict with other recreational and
civic purposes of the park.
(c) Community facilities or neighborhood support/recreation
facilities (which are permitted as an accessory use to
housing). if @no (1) og there buildings or.
to meet rl,e w"kspawr ..0 •7.:r s.,t,re..r:..« rt,e., it must
19
a�Cili" `1s8¢iall� thai%theretiutred�mintmut�L size for
e,faxci tyM be physically integrated with
e7k' �� .,-• as'adhr Rfr dit r Ma r,�5 'ct:
sui �p spatee as,�eededito meet t�►e requlredmmiinum
sizes
Section 42. That Section 4.9(B)(2)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(2) The owner of any property in the T District may at any time
petition the city to remove the property from this zone district and
place it in another zone district. Unless thr following time
liirutahonx are waived by the'.'petitioner Aany such petition shall
be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered at
the next regular meeting of such board which is scheduled at least
fifteen (15) days from the date the petition is filed with the City
Clerk. Within sixty (60) days from the date the matter is
considered by the board, the City Council shall change the zoning
for the property in question to another zone district authorized
under this Article.
Section 43. That parts B. and C. of the chart contained in Section 4.12(B)(2) of the
Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
B. INSTITUTIONAL/
CIVIC/PUBLIC
Places of worship or Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted
assembly
Public and private schools BP Type 1 Type 1
(colleges, universities,
vocation training)
Public and private schools Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
(elementary, intermediate
and high school
education)
Community facilities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
20
Long-term care facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Public facilities BP Type 1 Type 1
Parks, recreation and Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
other open lands, except
neighborhood parks as
defined by the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan
Transit facilities (without IType 2 Type 2 Type 2
repair/storage)
Jails, detention and penal Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2
centers
Bed and breakfast BP Type 1 Type 1
establishments
Standard restaurants BP Type 1 Type 1
Retail establishments BP Type 2 Type 2
Grocery stores Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1
Personal and business BP Type 1 Type I
service shops
Offices, financial services BP Type 1 Type 1
and clinics
Artisan, photography BP Type 1 Type I
galleries and studios
Limited indoor recreation BP Type 1 Type 1
establishments
Fast food restaurants BP Type 1 Type 1
Gasoline stations Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Bars and taverns BP Type 2 Type 2
Night clubs BP Type 2 Type 2
Entertainment facilities BP Type 2 Type I
and theaters
Child care centers Type 1 Type 1 Type I
Clubs and lodges BP Type 1 Type 1
Funeral homes Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted
21
Lodging establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
Health and membership BP Type 1 Type 1
clubs
Parking lots and garages Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
(as a principal use)
Veterinary Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
facilities/small animal
clinics
Supermarkets Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Open-air farmers markets Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Large retail Type 2 Type 2 Type 2
establishments
Print shops Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Dog day-care facilities Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2
Food catering BP BP BP
Exhibit halls BP Type 2 Type 1
conference/convention BP Type,2 Type;2
center
Section 44. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition of"change of use" to read as follows:
Change of use shall mean the act'of changing the.occupancy'of a building or land from a
use that is specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 to a different use that is
specifically listed as a"Permitted Use" in Article 4. A change of use occurs whenever:
(A) the occupancy,of a single tenant buildin11 g or of a parcel of land changes from the
most recent previous eicshng useta a different use;
(B) the oeeupanc rof a tetlantisaoe? $mulri tenant bmldwg changes to a use that is
not cu�ret�tly��panat �, „i�� °t1ie�,�t�nant space a�m�the,building. or that`did not
prevrously exist nr antenant space of?the'buiiding within the last iaYelve (12)
month§;o>
(C) z,'the most recentpre ously exlsd -,Luse of a building br land has been abandoned;
6y cessation of.active and continuous perations during a period of twelve (12)
consecutr�ve Amon,' `, 3 either the `same :type of use is proposed to be:re-
atrise tTrai not ezrst on the propeity rs proposed to be
nh•fiu .ry :..ao- vmv mf a.... an.4x F tau., _u an.
Section 45. That subparagraph (B)(2) of the definition of "development" in Section
5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
22
. (B) Development shall not include:
(2) work by any public utility for the purpose of inspecting, repairing,
renewing or constructing, on ostablickadpublic rights-of-way, any
mains, pipes, cables, utility tunnels, power lines, towers, poles,
tracks or the like; provided, however, that this exemption shall not
include work by a public utility in constructing or enlarging mass
transit or railroad depots or terminals or any similar traffic-
generating activity;
Section 46. That the definition of"large retail establishment" in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Large retail establishment shall mean a retail establishment, or any combination of retail
establishments in a single building or inseparate but aliuttutg butldirigs, or a movie
theater or an indoor recreational use, occupying more than twenty-five thousand (25,000)
gross square feet of floor area, except that no supermarket shall be deemed to be a large
retail establishment.
Section 47. That the definition of"parks, recreation and open lands" in Section 5.1.2
of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Parks, recreation and open lands shall mean natural areas as described in the Natural
Areas Policy Plan,parks and recreation facilities as described in the Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan whether such facilities are owned or operated by the,city'or-by another not-
for-profit organization, environmental interpretation facilities, outdoor environmental
research or education facilities, or public outdoor places.
Section 48. That the definition of"plant nursery and greenhouse" in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Plant nursery and greenhouse shall mean any land or structure used primarily to raise
trees, shrubs, flowers or other plants for sale or for transplanting and may include the sale
of non hvingilandscape and decorating products.
Section 49. That the definition of"recycling facility" in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Recycling facility shall mean a building or land used for the collection and/or processing
of recyclable material. Processing shall mean the preparation of material for efficient
shipment by such means as baling, compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing,
mechanical sorting'or cleaning. Such a facility, if entirely enclosed within a building or
buildings, shall be considered a warehouse.
Section 50. That the definition of"warehouse and distribution" in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
23
Warehouse and distribution shall mean a use engaged in storage, wholesale, and
distribution of manufactured products, supplies or equipment, including accessory offices
or showrooms, * including incidental retail sales, but excluding bulk storage of
materials that are inflammable or explosive or that create hazardous or commonly
recognized offensive conditionsndwhet 'rod I'd s,i sapplres, or equipment that are
onthepiemisea.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 5th day
of June, A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of June,A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 19th day of June, A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
24
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
259 Increase awareness of noise issues by adding a reference for developers in 3.4 that refers to
the Nuisance section of the City Code 20-23.
Problem Statement
At the request of Council's Health and Safety Committee,Staff has looked into the area
of how zoning addresses noise issues. City Code Section 20,Article 2 governs how
many decibels are allowed to be generated per zone district. The concern was how a
potential land use from a low decibel zone(residential)would interface with an existing
land use from a high decibel zone(industrial). Since Section 20,Article 2 is
comprehensive,the Committee agreed that the best approach would be to leave the
regulatory framework within Section 20,Article 2 but add a reference in the Land Use
Code. This reference will state that no matter where development occurs,the maximum
noise decibels as per Section 20,Article 2 will govern.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a reference to Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code that any noise generated will not
violate the noise regulations contained in Chapter 20,Article 2 of the City Code.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Elfect
21 3.4.4 Add reference to nuisance section.
411 Amend 2.1.4(A)(3) by changing "final" development plan to "approved" development plan
for consistency.
Problem Statement
Section 2.1.4(A)(3)refers to the effect of a development application approval and that
changes to an approved development plan must be in accordance with Division 2.2. The
entire section uses the term"approved development plan"except in(3)which refers to
"final"development plan.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise to Code to make the language in 2.1.4(A)(3)consistent with the rest of the section.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.1.4(A)(3) Revise language for consistency.
412 Adopt a provision to prevent(future applications only) private covenants which prohibit
xeriscaping, solar panels, photovoltaic cells,compost bins&clotheslines.
Problem Statement
The City Council wants to include a provision in the Land Use Code which would
prevent,as to future applications only,and not to apply retroactively,the establishment of
private protective covenants which prohibit or inhibit an owner of private property from
establishing xeriscape landscaping or installing solar/photo-voltaic collectors,compost
bins or clothes lines.
Proposed Solution Overview
Wednesday,May 30.2001 Page l of 18
Since all of these issues pertain to environmental sensitivity and resource conservation,it
may be best to amend Division 3.4(Environmental Resource Protection Standards)by
the addition of a new Section 3.4.9(Promotion of Conservation).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
22 3.4.9 Add new provisions regarding Promotion of Conservation.
413 Amend 2.8.2(H)(1) (P&Z) and 2.10.2(H)(2) (Z.B.A.)which authorizes Modifications and
Variances based on "equal to or better than" standard. Revisions would make the standard
easier to understand.
Problem Statement
Section 2.8.2(H)(1)which authorizes the modification of standards on the basis of"equal
to or better than". In some cases,the proposed Modification does not,and cannot
advance the purpose of the existing standard equally well or better than compliance
would. Furthermore,the plan as submitted must either"advance"or"protect" the "public
interest"and"purposes",with each of the quoted words having a separate meaning.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to refine the standards to better support application of the "equal to or
better" test. The terms"advance"or"protect" should be deleted in exchange for the
term "promote". Also, the terms"public interests and purposes" should be deleted in
exchange for the term"general purpose". The public interests were identified in City
Plan and the purposes were identified in"purpose statements" some of which did not
exist in the context of a particular standard. Without these changes,the existing code put
us in the quandary of trying to glean a purpose where one was not expressly stated.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 2.8.2(H)(1) Clarify modification criteria.
15 2.10.2(H)(2) Clarify modification criteria.
414 Amend the Transition zone district,4.9(B)(2) to allow rezoning petitioners to voluntarily
extend or waive the 60-day deadline for Council action.
Problem Statement
In the Transition District,in Section 4.9(B)(2),there is a time deadline established within
which the City Council must change the zone district from the Transition District to some
other district. There is no authority in the Code for a waiver of that time limit. Even so,
with regard to the Johnson annexation,we were able to obtain a waiver from the land
owner in order to give the Council more time to ruminate.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to add language in paragraph(2)to expressly authorize petitioners to
waive the time deadlines.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code CitQ Revision Effect
42 4.9(8)(2) Add explicit waiver provisions.
415 Clarify 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) regarding private drive/public street intersections by deleting the
requirement for a"New Driveway Approach." Provides greater flexibility to allow small
turning radius. Engineering retains authority in Section 3.3.5.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 2 of 18
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)requires all private drivetpublic street intersections to be
constructed in accordance with an Engineering standard known as"New Driveway
Approach." This standard requires such a curb cut to not have any turning radius
whatsoever. We have seen several applications where it makes sense to provide a small
turning radius to handle the anticipated traffic volumes without sacrificing safety.
Examples include curb cuts serving attached single family or multi-family parking lots,
especially along arterials. These applications have been brought to the Board for
modifications. In some cases,this has elevated a P.D.P.from a Type 1 to a Type 2
review. This revision works in concert with LCUASS.
Staff beliefs the standard is made obsolete by LCUASS and that the degree of turning
radius can be safely reviewed and evaluated for health and safety on a case by case basis.
Engineering still retains authority by virtue of Section 3.3.5.
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete explicit reference to the New Driveway Approach standard in the Code.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) Clarify driveway approach standards.
417 Revise the Group Home Separation table, 3.8.6,to clarify that a new home in one zone does
not make an existing one in another zone non-conforming.
Problem Statement
The group home regulations in Section 3.8.6 establish the maximum number of residents
allowed,the minimum lot area required,and the minimum separation distance required
between group homes. These regulations differ depending on the zone that the home is
located in. The separation requirements are somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether
or not the distance required is just for group homes that are located in the same zone,or
whether the more restrictive separation requirement for a home in a neighboring zone
takes precedence. For instance,the NCB zone requires a separation distance of 700 feet
from"any other group home",whereas the distance in the NCM zone is 1000 feet from
"any other group home". The way the table format in the Code is set up,it's not clear
how to apply the different distances when there is an existing group home in the NCM,
and when a new group home in the NCB wants to locate 800 feet away from it. The new
home meets the 700 foot standard for the NCB,but the existing NCM home will no
longer meet the 1000 foot standard.
The intent of the separation requirement is explained in Section 3.8.6(c)(2),which states
that the separation distances are needed"...to protect the city from any detrimental
impacts resulting from an excessive concentration of group homes in any one(1)
vicinity." It doesn't state that it is intended to protect the city from an excessive
concentration in any one zone. Since the scenario above deals with 2 group homes in the
same vicinity or neighborhood,the fact that they are in different zones should not result
in the new group home being able to violate the more restrictive standard. The presence
of a zoning district line on a zoning map does not create any sort of substantial physical
barrier that would create two different neighborhoods. It is simply a line on a piece of
paper.
Proposed Solution Overview
The tables in Section 3.8.6(A) and(B)of the LUC should be amended by changing the
existing single asterisk footnote in Table B to a double asterisk,and adding a new single
asterisk in the separation requirement column of both tables and a resulting explanation
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 3 of IS
at the bottom of table(A)and(B).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
30 3.8.6(A) Revise the Group Home separation table.
31 3.8.6(B) Revise the Group Home separation table.
418 Amend the definition of'Parks,Recreation and Open Lands" to allow for private or non-
profit parks. Presently the definition just recognizes "public" parks,recreation and open
lands.
Problem Statement
The LUC allows Parks,recreation and open lands in all zones. Such a use is defined in
part as"...parks and recreation facilities as described in the Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan,environmental interpretation facilities,outdoor environmental research or education
facilities,or public outdoor places." This means that the only types of not-for-profit
parks and recreation facilities that are allowed are those that are City-owned. Therefore,
organizations like the Fort Collins Soccer Club,Fort Collins Little League Baseball Club,
Fort Collins Church Athletic Association,or the Boys and Girls Clubs of America are not
allowed to construct their own recreational facilities,even though they would be identical
in function and impact to a City facility.
Proposed Solution Overview
The City should not be the only entity that is allowed to construct not-for-profit
recreational facilities. The LUC contains standards that apply to the various permitted
uses regardless of ownership. If the City constructs a ball field or soccer field complex,
then the applicable development standards must be complied with in order to ensure
proper design. A privately owned complex would have to comply with the exact same
standards that apply to a City complex. A private complex should not be prohibited
simply because it isn't owned or operated by the City. It should only be prohibited from
being constructed if the development plan does not comply with the applicable standards.
The LUC should be amended to allow all not-for-profit recreational facilities to be
treated the same. It is recommended that the definition of Parks,recreation and open
lands in Section 5.1.2 be amended as follows to accomplish this. These uses are
currently allowed in all zones as a Type 1 public hearing review. Changing the
definition would not change the review process required. (It should be noted that for-
profit outdoor recreational uses are treated differently,and they are allowed in only the
C,C-N,and I districts).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Code CiteRevision Effect
47 5.1.2 Amend defintion of'Parks, recreation and open lands'to
include private parks.
420 Consider strengthening the co-location(same pole)requirement in the case of multiple
wireless telecommunication providers in the same general vicinity.Could possibly reduce the
overall number of poles city-wide.
Problem Statement
Presently,the Code requires wireless telecommunication providers to make a good faith
effort to allow subsequent applicant/competitors to co-locate facilities on their existing
pole. The Code does not,however,require subsequent applicants to make a good faith
effort to find these existing poles on which to co-locate their facilities.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 4 of 18
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Code to require applicants to make a good faith effort to find co-location
possibilities.
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
34 3.8.13(B) Require efforts to co-locate facilities.
421 Clarify that in an L-M-N Neigh.Center, the maximum building size of 5,000 sq. ft. refers to
building "footprints," not total square footage of floor area. Would then allow 2-stories.
Problem Statement
In the L-M-N,Section 4.4(B)(2)(c)3 refers to a neighborhood center as a Type One
permitted use and that such centers may contain a retail store,offices,financial services
and clinics as long as they contain less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. This
suggests that a one-story building containing 5,000 square feet would be at the maximum
and could not include a second story. This was never the intention of the standard. The
essence of the standard is to regulate the mass and bulk of the building envelope,not
gross square footage. A two-story building,with 5,000 square feet per floor,would be
permitted.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the 5,000 sqr.foot limit to relate to the building footprint,not total square footage.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Code Cit Revision Effect
36 4.4(8)(2)(C)(3) Amends 5,000 square foot limit on t.MN Niighborhood
center buildings to apply to building footprint.
423 Clarify 3.5.2(C),and delete as redundant 3.5.1(D),to emphasize that the standard applies to
"dwellings" instead of"attached and multi-family buildings." The exemption for single
family detached dwellings &one accessory dwelling is clarified.
Problem Statement
These two changes work in tandem as(L) a housekeeping item for clarification to
3.5.2(C)and(2.)delete 3.5.1(D)because it becomes completely redundant with this
change.
3.5.2(C) should simply apply to"dwellings'instead of"attached and multi-family
buildings'. To maintain the longstanding practice of exempting single-family detached
house lots from development review of site plans,new language needs to exempt them.
The point is,it is simpler and more effective to treat single family detached houses as the
exception to the general rule,rather than list all types of dwellings other than single
family detached.
Staff has seen housing types in development review that raised questions about the
applicability of 3.5.2(C)and 3.5.1(D),finally prompted staff to propose fixing these
minor discrepancies.
Proposed Solution Overview
1. Change"Attached and Multi Family Buildings", in the heading,to"Dwellings'.
2. Add a new paragraph 3.5.2(C)(1)(a)exempting single family detached dwellings and
up to one"accessory"unit on a single family lot.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 5 of 18
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
23 3.5.1(D) Delete redundant code provsions. Addressed by 3.5.2(C)
25 3.5.2(C) Clarifies applicability of connecting walkway standard.
424 In L-M-N,consider allowing all designated affordable housing projects containing 10 acres
or less to attain a max.density of 12 d.u./gross acre and drop the "Infill" qualifier.Works
with#447.
Problem Statement
In the L-M-N,Section 4.4(D)(1)(b)refers to the maximum density of any development
taken as whole shall be eight dwelling units per gross acre. Affordable housing projects
that are 10 acres or less,however,are granted up to 12 d.u./a but only if located in the
"Infill Area." Staff is finding that limiting the option of allowing higher densities for
affordable projects defeats the purpose of distributing such housing across the entire
geography of the city.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the code to remove the limitation that affordable housing projects be in the infill
area to exceed eight units per acre in the LMN zone.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cit Revision Effect
38 4.4(D)(1)(b) Remove infill area requirement for LMN affordable housing
project maximum density exemption.
425 Clarify that compliance with other Code standards may result in loss of allowable signage in
some rare cases.
Problem Statement
Language from L.D.G.S. All Development Criterion A-2.14,"Signs,"inadvertently did
not get carried over in the Land Use Code.
Proposed Solution Overview
This revision proposes to add this language back in under Section 3.8.7(E)which
contains the standards for the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. This language
says that in evaluating the location of a flush wall sign in the Residential Neighborhood
Sign District,the relationship between architectural character and wall signage shall be
considered. Further clarification advises that complying with this criterion may result in
a loss of allowable signage in some rare cases. The language is taken verbatim from All
Development Criterion A-2.14 of the Land Development Guidance System.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
32 3.8.7(E)(2) Add clarification language.
33 3.8.7(E)(11) Amend sign code to include missing language.
426 Delete 3.6.2(L)(2)(f)which presently prohibits sormwater from a private drive crossing a
public walk. The new LCUASS allows a small amount of water to drain over walks.
Engineering and Stormwater retain authority under 3.3.5.
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(f)specifies that sormwater from private drives cannot be directed
over public sidewalks. This standard is now obsolete by virtue of the fact that the new
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards(LCUASS)allow a small area of influence
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 6 of 18
to drain over the sidewalk. Engineering and Stormwater retain authority under Section
3.35.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the code to be consistent with newly adopted street standards.
Related Code Revisions
Qrd Section Code Cite Revision Effect
26 3.6.2(L)(2)(f) Revise code to be consistent with new street standards.
427 In the Downtown zone,change "Convention and Conference Center" from the
"Institutional/Civic/Public Use" category to "Commercial/Retail category.
Problem Statement
A convention and conference center facility is allowed in only 3 districts-the Downtown
(D),the Harmony Corridor(HC),and the Employment(E). The use is listed under the
Commercial/Retail use category in the HC and E districts,but is listed under the
Institutional/Civic/Public Use category in the D district. It should be listed under the
same use category in all 3 districts.
Proposed Solution Overview
The permitted use table of the Downtown District in Section 4.12(B)(2) should be
amended by deleting conferencelconvention center from 4.12(B)(2)(b)and adding
conference/convention center to 4.12(B)(3)(c).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Code Q Revision Effect
43 4.12(B)(2) Amend permitted use table to reflect the shift in categories.
428 Regulate expansions of existing development beyond project limits onto unplatted property.
Closes a loophole.
Problem Statement
The Land Use Code does not contain any provision that prohibits the approval of a minor
amendment application which would result in buildings or site improvements that would
be located outside of the boundaries of the approved plan. Thus,there have been
instances when new work has been allowed"off-site"without the need for platting land
or for processing a major amendment. An example of such an instance is the Anheuser-
Busch Brewery site. Over the years they have been allowed to expand parking facilities
and buildings onto unplatted property that is not within the boundaries of the approved
PUD. These expansions have been allowed under the minor amendment process.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to ensure that buildings,additions,and site improvements do not occur on
previously"unreviewed"property,the Minor Amendment regulations in Section
2.2.10(A)should be amended by adding a new subsection(e)to 2.2.10(A)(1)and
2.2.10(A)(2).
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section - Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2.10(A)(1) Add new sub-section.
4 2.2.10(A)(2) Add new sub-section.
429 Amend the definition of"Plant Nursery and Greenhouse" to allow selling of non-living
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 7 of 18
products like bark,fertilizer,sprinkler equipment,etc.
Problem Statement
The current definition of Plant nursery and greenhouse allows uses that raise and/or sell
only trees,shrubs,flowers or other plants. Technically,this means that such an
establishment can not sell non-living products that are generally associated with indoor or
outdoor landscaping such as bark,mulch,fertilizer,sprinkler equipment and the like. A
person customarily expects to be able to find such items in stock at nurseries and
greenhouses in Fort Collins,but the current wording of the definition means that it is
illegal for these uses to sell this type of inventory.
Proposed Solution Overview
The definition of Plant nursery and greenhouse in Section 5.1.2 of the LUC should be
amended in order to allow the sale of non-living products:
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
48 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Plant Nursery and Greenhouse"
430 Amend the definition of"Warehouse and Distribution" to clarify that items distributed may
not be consumed on the premises.
Problem Statement
A warehouse and distribution use can be a facility that distributes food products that
should be or are intended to be consumed off-site. There is currently nothing in the
definition that prevents a customer from using or consuming the product on part of the
premises,such as in the parking lot. For instance,the Latimer County Food Distribution
Center and the Salvation Army Warehouse and Distribution Facility distribute food
products to people with the intent that such products be used or consumed off-site.
However,some customers of such facilities,in particular the Salvation Army property,
actually consume the food products on site,thereby turning the parking lot into something
that resembles a fast-food restaurant.
Proposed Solution Overview
The definition of Warehouse and distribution in Section 5.1.2 of the LUC should be
amended in order to prohibit the use of distributed products on-site.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Sertion Code CiteRevision Effect
50 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Warehouse and Distribution'.
431 Amend the definition of"Recycling Facility" to clarify that the use can occur either within a
building or upon land in the event that there is no building on the site.
Problem Statement
The current definition of Recycling facility only applies to a facility wherein the use is
conducted in a building. Yet staff has had numerous inquiries about where a recycling
facility can be located if there is no building on-site. Rather than collecting recyclable
material inside a building,the material is proposed to be collected in containers that are
stored on the lot,and where no building is needed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The LUC already contains adequate locational,screening and landscaping requirements
in 3.5.1(J)for outdoor storage areas in order to ensure that the visual and acoustic
impacts of these functions are"fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties
and public streets." The definition of Recycling facility in Section 5.1.2 should be
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 8 of 18
amended as proposed below in order to allow such a facility to locate on property that
doesn't contain a building.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Secti Code CiteRevision Effect
49 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Recycling Facility"
432 Add "Rules for Measuring Distances," as a general explanation that clarifies the proper way
(as the crow flies) to measure required separation distances between uses.
Problem Statement
Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code contain numerous references to certain uses being
allowed only if they are located a minimum distance from other similar uses. For
instance,group homes are allowed so long as they comply with the separation
requirements found in the tables in Section 3.8.6(A)and(B), convenience stores with
fuel sales are allowed in several zones only if they are a/4 of a mile from any other such
use,and several other uses are similarly restricted.
On more than one occasion,someone has argued that the way to measure the required
distance is to calculate the linear feet required to walk from one property to another along
a public sidewalk. Applying this approach,a proposed group home located on one lot
may be determined to be 1000 feet from another group home that is located on the lot
directly behind the first one,even though the lots are actually abutting. The fact that a
person has to walk all the way around the block to get from one property to the other
accounts for the"skewed" 1000 foot distance. If the code requires a minimum separation
distance of 700 feet,the applicant argues that their proposed location complies based on
the way they measure the separation distance.
. Proposed Solution Overview
A section should be added to Article I of the Code that clarifies the appropriate method
to measure distances.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code CiteRevision Effect
1 1.4.10 Add"Rules for Measuring Distances."
433 Clarify 3.2.2(K)(5)[c] that every handicap parking space be identified by a handicap parking
sign. Closes a loophole that could have exempted out lots with 5 spaces or less.
Problem Statement
There are 2 sections in the Code that require handicap parking spaces to be identified by a
sign. Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(a)requires that each such space be identified by a raised
standard identification sign. Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(c)requires that a sign be provided only
for handicap spaces that are located in parking lots that contain more than 5 parking
spaces,meaning that a handicap parking space in a small lot doesn't have to be
identified. These 2 sections obviously conflict,and it is also obvious that any handicap
parking space must be signed appropriately in order to discourage non-handicap parking
from occurring.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to correct the existing conflict and to ensure that all handicap parking spaces are
adequately marked,Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(c)should be amended.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code 01 Revision Effect
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 9 of 18
19 3.2.2(K)(5)(C) Clarify 3.2.2(K)(5)[c]that every handicap parking space be
identified by a handicap parking sign.
434 Add a definition for "Change of Use." This will help clarify the extent of upgrades for pre-
LUC developments.
Problem Statement
A change of use of a building or property is one of the occurrences that require a
certificate of occupancy(CO). The other occurrence is the construction of a new
principal building. The requirement of a CO is significant because that is the instrument
that ensures that development complies with the applicable standards of the LUC. The
CO requirement is particularly significant when applied to changes of use that involve
buildings which were constructed subject to standards that pre-dated the LUC. The site
upgrades associated with a change of use allow the City to incrementally upgrade
properties over time. For instance,before a CO can be issued to authorize a retail store in
a building that was previously an office building,such things as parking lot upgrades,
additional landscaping,and public improvements must be completed in compliance with
the current City standards.
The term"change of use"is currently not defined. Since such a change can impose
substantial conditions to the property owner,it is important that the term be understood
clearly.
Proposed Solution Overview
In order to add clarity to the Land Use Code,Section 5.1.2 should be amended by the
addition of a definition of"change in use".
Related Code Revisions
Ord,Section Code Cite Revision Effect
44 5.1.2 Add a definition for"Change of Use."
435 Amend definition of"Large Retail Establishment" to clarify that separate but abutting
buildings are also considered to be large retail establishments. Closes the loophole of newly
created separate lot lines not triggering big box standards.
Problem Statement
The current definition of Large retail establishment(big box) applies only to single
buildings that are larger than 25,000 square feet. It doesn't apply to a situation where two
"separate but abutting"buildings total more than 25,000 square feet. For instance,
Barnes and Noble is currently a single building that contains less than 25,000 square feet.
If they were to construct a 10,000 square foot addition to the side of the building,the
new,expanded Barnes and Noble store would exceed 25,000 square feet. This would
result in the use of the property changing from a"retail establishment"to a"large retail
establishment". Such a change of use would mean that the big box standards would apply
to the property,and certain site improvements and building changes would be triggered.
However,if Barnes and Noble created a lot line along the side of their building,thereby
establishing a new lot,it would be possible for the owner to construct a 10,000 square
foot retail building without being subject to the big box standards. This would be the
case whether the owner of the new lot is still Barnes and Noble or someone else!The
existence of the new lot line would result in the new construction being considered a
separate building,even though the new store and Barnes and Noble"share"the
previously existing exterior wall. It would not be evident from the external appearance of
the structures that these are actually two separate buildings. However,since each
building would contain less than 25,000 square feet,no big box improvements would be
required despite the fact that the general public would view the property as one multi-
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 10 of 19
tenant big box building.
Proposed Solution Overview
Since the current definition of Large retail establishment in Section 5.1.2 contains a
loophole that allows the circumvention of the intended application of the big box
standards,the definition should be amended.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
46 Section 5.1.2 Amend definition of"Large Retail Establishment'
436 Clarify the reimbursement procedure(from future abutting developers)both for the City and
developers who construct required off-site public improvements.
Problem Statement
Currently when the City designs and constructs a street through undeveloped areas,the
City can be reimbursed for the design and construction costs at the time these
undeveloped areas are developed and when such future development takes access from
that street. As written,there is no mention of the cost of land acquisition as a
reimbursable expense.
Similarly,when a developer is required to construct a street through off-site undeveloped
areas,there is no Code provision that the developer is also eligible to be reimbursed for
the cost of off-site land or right-of-way acquisition. The only reimbursable expenses are
for design and construction.
Proposed Solution Overview
It is proposed that when the City expends public funds to acquire land or right-of-way
for the design and construction of public streets through undeveloped areas,the costs for
the acquisition would be reimbursed at the time the land is developed and the developer
takes access from the new street. They same provision would be afforded to private
developers who acquire off-site land or right-of-way for public streets.
Add language to 3.3.2(F)(2) to allow for the reimbursement to the City and private
developers for their costs to acquire land/right-of-way for the construction of public
streets through undeveloped areas.
Related Code Revisions
Ord, Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 3.3.2(F)(2) Clarifies reimbursement procedure for off-site
improvements.
437 In M-M-N, provide flexibility to the minimum 10,000 sqr. ft.. private park requirement for
projects two acres or less. Also,clarify the outdoor space requirement.
Problem Statement
In the M-M-N zone district,Section 4.5(D)(3)requires all residential projects to be
within one-quarter mile of a park,central feature or gathering place. Privately owned
park spaces are often used to meet the standard according to 4.5(13)(3)(b),which requires
a minimum size of 10,000 square feet,no matter what size the development project is.
Recently,a small development project on a site of about two acres highlighted the
difficulty that such small projects may have in meeting this standard.
In evaluating this standard,staff believes that some flexibility is needed in such small
projects. It may be practically impossible for such small projects,if not already located
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 11 of 18
within one-quarter mile of a public park,to provide an on-site feature that meets the
current standard. Also,such small projects presumably generate less need for the
mitigation that this standard provides.
In evaluating the standard,Staff also noticed the need for to clarify the outdoor space
requirement in 4.5(D)(3)(c). Any community or neighborhood support facilities,such as
pool/clubhouse facilities,should count toward the minimum size requirement. Otherwise,
the outdoor space could be a disincentive for such facilities—which was never intended.
Proposed Solution Overview
In projects 2 acres or less,instead of the 10,000 s.f.minimum requirement,use 6%of the
gross site area. Based on a little over 5,000 s.f.for a 2-acre site;2,600 s.f.for a 1-acre
site,and so on. In considering the plan that prompted this item,staff believes this is a
reasonable balance of considerations.
Also,clarify that any community or neighborhood support facilities count towards the
size requirement.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
41 4.5(D)(3) Amend provisions.
41 4.5(D)(3)(b)+(c) Amend provisions.
441 For consistency with the Fire Code,rename 3.6.6 and 3.6.6(D), move(1)(2,3,4) &(P)(3)
under(D) for clarity.
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.6 contains three subsections titled"Fire Access Roads"(3.6.6[D]);"Fire
Lanes"(3.6.6[J]);and"Access'(3.6.6[P]). All three are specific to specifying"fire lane"
design criteria. Due to three different titles for"fire lanes,"applicants are and have been
confused not knowing which section may apply to their particular submittal.
Proposed Solution Overview
For clarity,all three sections should be consolidated. This includes deleting 3.6.6(J)(1)
since its duplicative;moving 3.6.6(J)(2)(3)(4)to 3.6.6(1))(4)(a)(b)(c)(d);moving
3.6.6(P)(3)to 3.6.6(D)(4)(e). In other words,consolidate these standards under 3.6.6(D)
and re-title"Emergency Fire Access Roads."
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code CiteRevision Effect
27 3.6.6(J)(1) Delete redundant provisions.
27 3.6.6(D) Consolidate fire access regulations for clarity.
442 Delete 3.6.6(I) 'Dead-end Length" as this duplicates 3.6.2(B).
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.6(I)"Dead-end Length"is a duplicate standard. This standard is already
covered under 3.6.2(B).
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete the duplicative standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code CiteRevision Effect
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 12 of 18
27 3.6.6(1) Deletes duplicative language.
443 Clarify 3.6.6(M) so that the reference to the "150 ft. access distance" is not related to the
length of a dead end fire lane but for access from the truck to side and rear yards for the fire
hose.
Problem Statement
Section 3.6.6(M) states that fences shall not obstruct the"one-hundred-fifty foot access
distance"unless gates are provided. There has been some confusion that this distance
refers to the fire lanes but,in fact,refers to the laying of the hose from the fire truck to
the side or rear of the structure. The intention is to require gates to gain access to side
and rear yards. The standard does not refer to fire lanes for fire trucks or other equipment
which is covered under another section.
Proposed Solution Overview
Clarify the standard.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
27 3.6.6(M) Clarify fire access standards.
444 Move 3.6.6(P)(4) to the "General Standard" 3.6.6(B)(1) because installation of automatic fire
sprinklers is a priority and a caveat for the whole section.
Problem Statement
The installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems is one of the main objectives of the
Poudre Fire Authority. If such systems are installed,then minimum fire access
requirements may be modified by the Fire Marshal. Presently,this standard is the last
standard in the fire access section. Since complying with this standard has an effect on
all the other fire access standards,it would be better placed at the beginning of the
standard. Such placement allows developers/contractors to know up front that automatic
fire extinguishing systems are prioritized and may be used to modify the subsequent
emergency access requirements
Proposed Solution Overview
Move 3.6.6(P)(4) to 3.6.6(B)(1)and Delete 3.6.6(P)(4).
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
27 3.6.6(P)(4) Delete redundant standard.
27 3.6.6(B)(1) Consolidate related standards.
445 Delete the term "Hardship' from the title and body of 2.10 since the scope of Z.B.A.'s criteria
to grant a variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
Problem Statement
The Zoning Board of Appeals is now allowed to grant variances for reasons other than
just"hardship." Consequently,Division 2.10,presently titled"Hardship Variances(By
the Zoning Board of Appeals),needs to be re-titled. Also,references to"hardship"
throughout Division 2.10 need to be stricken.
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete references to"hardship,"where applicable, in Division 2.10.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 13 of 18
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 2.10 Delete references to"hardship".
11 2.10.1 Delete references to"hardship".
12 2.10.2 Delete references to'hardship".
13 2.10.2(C) Delete references to"hardship".
14 2.10.2(G) Delete references to"hardship".
16 2.10.2(K) Delete references to"hardship". -
446 Amend 2.2.11(A), "Lapse," to provide flexibility for application submittals that,for good
cause,may need more than the 90 days,plus one 30-day extension, to address comments from
the City.
Problem Statement
Presently,Section 2.2.1l(A)requires application submittals to address City comments in
90 days, with one 30-day extension,or be considered null and void. In several recent
applications,applicants have requested more time than that allowed by Code in order to
comprehensively address Staff comments. Due to this time limitation,these applications
have lapsed requiring a re-application. Experience has shown that the additional time is
warranted to address a significant comment(s)that was discovered during plan review.
Examples include the discovery of a species requiring an Ecological Characterization
Study,or a Staff request to broaden the scope of a Transportation Impact Study,or
address a neighborhood concern. Since it is in the City's interest to have such comments
thoroughly addressed in order to meet standards,the additional time will often result in a
better project
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Section to increase the initial 30-day extension to 60 days and provide for
one subsequent additional extension of 30 days thereafter,if necessary. This would
allow a total of 90 days. After such time and comments remain unaddressed,the project
will lapse and be considered null and void.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Code Cia Revision Effect
5 2.2.11(A) Amend lapse provisions to allow extensions.
447 Amend 3.2.1 to add a reference to reduce the minimum tree(shade&ornamental) and shrub
sizes for projects officially designated as "Affordable." Works with#424.
Problem Statement
Section 3.2.1(D)(4)sets minimum sizes for street trees,ornamental trees and shrubs.
Minimum requirements for the size of trees and shrubs in new housing development are
one factor,however small,in the cost of new housing development. Reducing the initial
size of trees and shrubs may assist,in a small way,in reducing costs for affordable
housing developments in Fort Collins,while also maintaining the City's overall,long-
term commitment to quality.
Proposed Solution Overview
Reduce minimum requirements for initial sizes of trees and shrubs at time of planting.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
17 3.2.1(D)(4) Add new reference relating to reduced minimum tree and
shrub sizes for affordable housing projects.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 14 of lg
18 3.2.1(D)(5) Add new reference relating to reduced minimum tree and
shrub sizes for affordable housing projects.
448 Revise the definition of"Development" by narrowing the exemption for work in the "rights-
of-way." Delete the adjective "established" and substitute "public." This would allow review
of work on private rights-of-way and easements.
Problem Statement
In Article 5,the definition of"Development"lists those types of activities that are exempt
from being considered development and thus exempt from the regulations of the Land
Use Code. One of these exemptions is listed as work by any public utility on
"established"rights-of-way. This could be interpreted broadly to include work on private
easements/rights-of-way negotiated between land owners and utility companies,special
districts and other agencies. By substituting"public"for"established,"the scope of the
exemption is narrowed to work in public easements/rights-of-way only.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Code by substituting"public"for"established,"to narrow the scope of the
exemption to work in public easements/rights-of-way only.
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
45 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Development".
449 Revise 2.3.2(H)(1)&(4) by clarifying how the General Development Standards of Art. Three
and the Zone District Standards of Art. Four are to be applied to the review of O.D.P.'s.
Works with#419.
Problem Statement
There has been some confusion regarding which standards within Article 3 should and
should not apply when considering the approval or denial of an Overall Development
Plan. The approval criteria contain a general statement that overall development plans
"shall also be consistent with any applicable general development standards(Article 3)".
The question is"which standards are applicable?"
The problem lies in that ODP's are conceptual"bubble diagrams"with the lowest level of
detail,while the standards in Article 3 are specific standards that require development
plans containing a high-level of detail to determine compliance. Staff does not want to
entirely delete the linkage between approval of an ODP and the standards of Article 3
because the linkage provides a good"safety net"to ensure that issues are addressed. On
the other side,it is not the intent of staff to hold a developer's feet to the fire for a
standard in Article 3 that cannot be proven out at the level of detail required in an ODP.
This proposed revision works in conjunction with#419.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff proposes to clarify how the general development standards in Article 3 and the
zone district standards in Article 4 are to be applied to ODPs. The problem lies in that
ODP's are conceptual"bubble diagrams"with the lowest level of detail,while the
standards in Article 3 are specific standards that require development plans containing a
high-level of detail to determine compliance. Staff does not want to entirely delete the
linkage between approval of an ODP and the standards of Article 3 because the linkage
provides a good"safety net"to ensure that issues are addressed. On the other side,it is
not the intent of staff to hold a developer's feet to the fire for a standard in Article 3 that
cannot be proven out at the level of detail required in an ODP.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 15 of 18
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 2.3.2(H)(1) Clarify OOP review standards.
7 2.3.2(H)(4) Clarify ODP review standards.
450 Clarify 3.7.2(B) which prohibits "rezoning&development" applications as annexations if the
proposed "development" is located outside the U.G.A.. Delete "rezonings" as we are required
by State law to zone annexed properties within 90 days.
Problem Statement
Section 3.7.2(B)states that no rezoning or development applications shall be accepted or
approved as part of an annexation petition if the proposed development is located outside
the Urban Growth Area. This standard creates a technical problem since State law
requires the city to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise Section 3.7.2(B)to allow zoning of land annexed outside the urban growth area.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code CiteRevision Effect
28 3.7.2(8) Allow zoning of land annexed outside the urban growth
area.
451 Revise 3.5.1(H)(1)(a)(4) to change "abutting' to "adjacent" in describing neighborhoods.
Only properties can be abutting. Neighborhoods can only be adjacent.
Problem Statement
In Section 3.5.1(H)(1)(a)(4),Building Height Review,the standard requires that in
reviewing a request for a structure over 40 feet,neighborhood scale be taken into
consideration. The standard refers to the abutting neighborhood. Only properties can be
abutting. Neighborhoods can only be adjacent.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise 3.5.1(H)(1)(a)(4)to change "abutting" to "adjacent" in describing neighborhoods.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
24 3.5.1(1-1)(1)(a)(4) Change'abutting"to'adjacent'
453 Revise 3.7.3(F),transportation APF exception for projects with nominal impacts. Change
"50 trips a day" to "50 peak hour trips" to be consistent with the Transportation Impact
Study Guidelines and current practice.
Problem Statement
The City's Adequate Public Facilities requilations contain an exemption for small
projects that produce only nominal impacts. The nominal impact threshold was
originally set at 50 trips a day when the code was fast adopted. Since that time,the
Transportation Impact Study guidelines have been revised to increase the nominal impact
threshold to be defined as 50 peak hour trips,but the Code has not yet been revised to
reflect this change in practice.
Proposed Solution Overview
Revise the Code to be consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines and
current practice by revising the nominal impact exemption to be 50 peak hour trips.
Related Code Revisions
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 16 of 18
Ord.Section Code Cite Revision Effect
29 3.7.3(F) Revise APF nominal impact exemption to be less than 50
peak hour trips.
454 Exempt"Places of Worship and Assembly"from size limits in LMN zone district.
Problem Statement
This item deals with two size limits in the LMN zone district: the 20,000 square foot limit
on the footprint of non-residential buildings,and the 5-acre size limit on Neighborhood
Centers. Schools are currently stated as an exception to both of these size limits,because
schools are ideal components of neighborhoods,but the reality is that all new public
school buildings would exceed the 20,000 square feet and many would cause a
neighborhood center to exceed 5 acres.
The limits were intended to prevent neighborhood centers or offices from becoming
major commercial attractions. This item is a proposal to treat places of worship and
assembly the same as schools.
Several proposals for churches have been presented since adoption of the Land Use
Code,and all have been over 20,000 square feet. Many existing churches in
neighborhood settings are well over 20,000 square feet. The typical reasons for the larger
buildings are similar to the reasons for large school buildings: assembly spaces,multi-use
gymnasiums,classrooms,child-care,and offices. Facilities often serve similar civic
purposes e.g. scouts,music groups,neighborhood and community meetings and events,
and similar non-profit and service purposes. For reasons similar to schools,places of
worship and assembly are a fine neighborhood center component but could create undue
problems with the 5-acre limit.
Both locally and nationally,there have been questions about whether large churches
disrupt neighborhoods. Typically,the main issues have to do with the cars—the parking
and traffic,and associated light,noise,and pavement.
Staff believes the Land Use Code already covers these issues,along with building
compatibility issues as well. One thing other cities have done is define larger community-
scale churches differently from neighborhood-scale churches,based on seats or parking
spaces. Cities that have done this then require arterial or collector street access for the
larger facilities. This is already the typical situation in Fort Collins and staff believes
adding such a distinction is unnecessary.
Places of worship and assembly have always been included along with schools as a
component of Fort Collins neighborhoods. Sizes and characteristics have always been
similar in many ways. Many existing churches in established neighborhoods are over
20,000 sq.ft.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add places of worship as an exception to the 20,000 square foot limit on non-residential
buildings;and from the 5-acre Neighborhood Center size limit.Such uses would be
allowed up to 25,000 sq. ft. through Type 1 review,and over 25,000 sq.ft.as a Type 2
permitted use.
Related Code Revisions
Ord.Secti Code CiteRevision Effect
35 4.4(B)(2)(b)(1) Allow Places of Worship with building footprints up to
. 25,000 sq.ft.as Type 1 us in the L-M-N Zone
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 17 of 18
37 4.4(B)(3)(b) Allow Places of Worship with building footprints over
25,000 sq.ft.as Type 2 use in the L-M-N Zone
39 4.4(D)(3)(c) Exempt places of worship from LMN neighbrhood center
land use requirements.
40 4.4(E)(2)(b) Exempt places of worship form LMN size limitations.
455 Correct cross-references.
Problem Statement
In 2.9,Amendment to Text of Code and/or Zoning Map,under"Applicability,"there is
an incorrect reference. This is a reference back to the Transition zone district.
Proposed Solution Overview
Change the reference from 4.9(B)(1)to 4.9(B)(2).
Related Code Revisions
Ord Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 2.9.2 Correct cross-references.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 18 of 19
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord.Section Al Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
1 1.4.10 Add"Rules for Measuring Distances." 432 Add"Rules for Measuring Distances,"as a general
explanation that clarifies the proper way(as the crow
flies)to measure required separation distances between
US".
2 2.1.4(A)(3) Revise language for consistency. 411 Amend 2.1.4(A)(3)by changing"final"development
plan to"approved"development plan for consistency.
3 2.2.10(A)(1) Add new sub-section. 428 Regulate expansions of existing development beyond
project limits onto unplatted property.Closes a
loophole.
4 2.2.10(A)(2) Add new sub-section. 428 Regulate expansions of existing development beyond
project limits onto unplatted property.Closes a
loophole.
5 2.2.11(A) Amend lapse provisions to allow extensions. 446 Amend 2.2.11(A),"lapse,"to provide flexibility for
application submittals that,for good cause,may need
more than the 90 days,plus one 30-day extension,to
address comments from the City.
6 2.3.2(H)(I) Clarify ODP review standards. 449 Revise 2.3.2(H)(p&(4)by clarifying how the General
Development Standards of Art Three and the Zone
District Standards of Art.Four are to be applied to the
review of O.D.P.'s.Works with#419.
7 2.3.2(H)(4) Clarify ODP review standards. 449 Revise 2.3.2(H)(1)&(4)by clarifying how the General
Development Standards of Art.Three and the Zone
District Standards of Art.Four are to be applied to the
review of O.D.P.'s.Winks with#419.
8 2.8.2(H)(1) Clarify modification criteria. 413 Amend 2.8.2(H)(1)(P&Z)and 2.10.2(H)(2)
(Z.B.A.)whicb authorizes Modifications and Variances
based on"equal to or better than"standard. Revisions
would make the standard easier to understand.
9 2.9.2 Correct cross-references. 455 Correct cross-references.
10 2.10 Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.AA criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyondjust hardship situations.
day,May 30,2001 Pag66
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
11 2.10.1 Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.A.'s criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
12 2.10.2 Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.A.'s criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
13 2.10.2(C) Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.A.'s criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
14 2.10.2(G) Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.A.'s criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
15 2.10.2(H)(2) Clarify modification criteria. 413 Amend 2.82(H)(I)(P&Z)and 2.102(H)(2)
(Z.B.A.)which authorizes Modifications and Variances
based on"equal to or better than"standard. Revisions j
would make the standard easier to understand.
16 2.10.2(K) Delete references to"hardship". 445 Delete the term"Hardship"from the title and body of
2.10 since the scope of Z.B.AA criteria to grant a
variance now goes beyond just hardship situations.
17 3.2.1(D)(4) Add new reference relating to reduced minimum tree and 447 Amend 3.2.1 to add a reference to reduce the minimum
shmb sizes for affordable housing projects. tree(shade&ornamental)and shrub sins for projects
officially designated as"Affordable." Works with
#424.
18 32.1(D)(5) Add new reference relating to reduced minimum tree and 447 Amend 3.2.1 to add a reference to reduce the minimum
shrub sizes for affordable housing projects. tree(shade&ornamental)and shrub sizes for projects
officially designated as"Affordable." Works with
#424.
19 322(K)(5)(C) Clarify 322(K)(5)[c]that every handicap parking space 433 Clarify 32.2(K)(5)[c]that every handicap parking
be identified by a handicap parking sign. space be identified by a handicap parking sign.Closes
a loophole that could have exempted out lots with 5
spaces or less.
20 332(F)(2) Clarifies reimbursement procedure for off-site 436 Clarify the reimbursement procedure(from future
improvements. abutting developers)both for the City and developers
who construct required off-site public improvements.
21 3.4.4 Add reference to nuisance section. 259 Increase awareness of noise issues by adding a
reference for developers in 3.4 that refers to the
Nuisance section of the City Code 20-23.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 2 of 6
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
22 3.4.9 Add new provisions regarding Promotion of Conservation. 412 Adopt a provision to prevent(future applications only)
private covenants which prohibit xeriscaping,solar
panels,photovoltaic cells,compost bins&clotheslines.
23 - 3.5.1(D) Delete redundant code provsions. Addressed by 3.5.2(C) 423 Clarify 3.5.2(C),and delete as redundant 3.5.1(D),to
emphasize that the standard applies to"dwellings"
instead of"attached and multi-family buildings." The
exemption for single family detached dwellings&one
accessory dwelling is clarified.
24 3.5.1(H)(1 Xa)(4) Change"abutting"to"adjacent' 451 Revise 3.5.1(H)(1)(a)(4)to change"abutting"to
"adjacent"in describing neighborhoods. Only
properties can be abutting. Neighborhoods can only be
adjacent.
25 3.5.2(C) Clarifies applicability of connecting walkway standard. 423 Clarify 3.5.2(C),and delete as redundant 3.5.1(D),to
emphasize that the standard applies to"dwellings"
instead of"attached and multi-family buildings." The
exemption for single family detached dwellings&one
accessory dwelling is clarified.
26 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) Clarify driveway approach standards. 415 Clarify 3.6.2(L)(2)(e)regarding private drivetpublic
street intersections by deleting the requirement for a
"New Driveway Approach." Provides greater
flexibility to allow small turning radius. Engineering
retains authority in Section 3.3.5.
26 3.6.2(L)(2)(f) Revise code to be consistent with new street standards. 426 Delete 3.6.2(L)(2)(f)which presently prohibits
stormwater from a private drive crossing a public
walk. The new LCUASS allows a small amount of
water to drain over walks. Engineering and
Stormwater retain authority under 3.3.5.
27 3.6.6(B$I) Consolidate related standards. 444 Move 3.6.6(P)(4)to the"General Standard"
3.6.6(B)(1)because installation of automatic fire
sprinklers is a priority and a caveat for the whole
section.
27 3.6.6(D) Consolidate fire access regulations for clarity. 441 For consistency with the Fire Code,rename 3.6.6 and
3.6.6(D),move(J)(2,3,4)&(P)(3)under(D)for clarity.
27 3.6.6(l) Deletes duplicative language. 442 Delete 3.6.6(1)"Dead-end Length"as this duplicates
3.6.2(B).
27 3.6.6(JXl) Delete redundant provisions. 441 For consistency with the Fire Code,rename 3.6.6 and
3.6.6(D),move(1)(2,3,4)&(P)(3)under(D)for clarity.
wigay,May 30,2001 Pag f6
Ord.Section 8 Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
27 3.6.6(M) Clarify fire access standards. 443 Clarify 3.6.6(M)so that the reference to the 150 ft.
access distance"is not related to the length of a dead
end fire lane but for access from the truck to side and
rear yards for the fire hose.
27 3.6.6(P)(4) Delete redundant standard. 444 Move 3.6.6(P)(4)to the"General Standard"
3.6.6(B)(1)because installation of automatic fire
sprinklers is a priority and a caveat for the whole
section.
28 3.7.2(B) Allow zoning of land annexed outside the urban growth 450 Clarify 3.7.2(B)which prohibits"rezoning&
area development"applications as annexations if the
proposed"development"is located outside the U.G.A..
Delete"rezonings"as we are required by State law to
zone annexed properties within 90 days.
29 3.7.3(F) Revise APF nominal impact exemption to he less than 50 453 Revise 3.7.3(F),transportation APF exception for
peak hour trips. projects with nominal impacts. Change"50 trips a
day"to"50 peak hour trips" to be consistent with the
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines and current
practice.
30 3.8.6(A) Revise the Group Home separation table. 417 Revise the Group Home Separation table,3.8.6,to
clarify that a new home in one zone does not make an
existing one in another zone non-conforming.
31 3.8.6(B) Revise the Group Home separation table. 417 Revise the Group Home Separation table,3.8.6,to
clarify that a new home in one zone does not make an
existing one in another zone non-confomting.
32 3.8.7(E)(2) Add clarification language. 425 Clarify that compliance with other Code standards may
result in loss of allowable signage in some rare cases.
33 3.8.7(EX 11) Amend sign code to include missing language. 425 Clarify that compliance with other Code standards may
result in loss of allowable signage in some rare cases.
34 3.8.13(B) Require efforts to co-locate facilities. 420 Consider strengthening the co-location(same pole)
requirement in the case of multiple wireless
telecommunication providers in the same general
vicinity.Could possibly reduce the overall number of
poles city-wide.
35 4.4(B)(2)(b)(1) Allow Places of Worship with building footprints up to 454 Exempt"Places of Worship and Assembly"from size
25,000 sq.R.as Type 1 ue in the L-M-N Zone limits in L.MN zone district.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 4 of 6
Ord.Section 8 Code Cite Revision Effect issue
36 4.4(B)(2)(C)(3) Amends 5,000 square foot limit on LMN Nieghborhood 421 Clarify,that in an LM-N Neigh.Center,the maximum
center buildings to apply to building footprint. building size of 5,000 sq.ft.refers to building
"footprints,"not total square footage of floor area.
Would then allow 2-stories.
37 4.4(B)(3)(b) Allow Places of Worship with building footprints over 454 Exempt"Places of Worship and Assembly"from size
25,000 sq.ft.as Type 2 use in the LM-N Zone limits in LMN zone district.
38 4.4(D)(1)(b) Remove infill area requirement for LMN affordable 424 In L-M-N,consider allowing all designated affordable
housing project maximum density exemption. housing projects containing 10 acres or less to attain a
max.density of 12 d.u./gross acre and drop the"Infill"
qualifier.Works with#447.
39 4.4(DX3)(c) Exempt places of worship from LMN neighbrhood center 454 Exempt"Places of Worship and Assembly"from size
land use requirements. limits in LMN zone district.
40 4.4(E)(2)(b) Exempt places of worship form LMN size limitations. 454 Exempt"Places of Worship and Assembly"from size
limits in LMN zone district.
41 4.5(D)(3) Amend provisions. 437 In M-M-N,provide flexibility to the minimum 10,000
sqr.ft..private park requirement for projects two acres
or less. Also,clarify the outdoor space requirement.
41 4.5(D)(3)(b)+(c) Amend provisions. 437 In M-M-N,provide flexibility to the minimum 10,000
sqr.ft..private park requirement for projects two acres
or less. Also,clarify the outdoor space requirement.
42 4.9(B)(2) Add explicit waiver provisions. 414 Amend the Transition zone district,4.9(B)(2)to allow
rezoning petitioners to voluntarily extend or waive the
60-day deadline for Council action.
43 4.12(B)(2) Amend permitted use table to reflect the shift in categories. 427 In the Downtown zone,change"Convention and
Conference Center"from the
"Institutional/CividWblic Use"category to
"Commercial/Retail category.
44 5.1.2 Add a definition for"Change of Use." 434 Add a definition for"Change of Use." This will help
clarify the extent of upgrades for pre-WC
developments.
45 5.1.2 Revise the definition of"Development". 448 Revise the definition of"Development"by narrowing
the exemption for work in the"rights-of-way." Delete
the adjective"established"and substitute"public."
This would allow review of work on private rights-of-
way and easements.
Way,May 30,2001 Page
war
Ord.Section# Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
46 Section 5.1.2 Amend definition of"large Retail Establishment" 435 Amend definition of"large Retail Establishment"to
clarify that separate but abutting buildings are also
considered to be large retail establishments.Closes the
loophole of newly created separate lot lines not
triggering big box standards.
47 5.1.2 Amend defintion of"Parks,recreation and open lands"to 418 Amend the definition of"Parks,Recreation and Open
include private parks. Lands"to allow for private or non-profit parks.
Presently the definition just recognizes"public"parks,
recreation and open lands.
48 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Plant Nursery and Greenhouse" 429 Amend the definition of"Plant Nursery and
Greenhouse"to allow selling of non-living products
like bark,fertilizer,sprinkler equipment,etc.
49 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Recycling Facility" 431 Amend the definition of"Recycling Facility"to clarify
that the use can occur either within a building or upon
land in the event that there is no building on the site.
I
50 5.1.2 Amend the definition of"Warehouse and Distribution". 430 Amend the definition of"Warehouse and Distribution"
to clarify that items distributed may not be consumed
on the premises.
Wednesday,May 30,2001 Page 6 of 6