HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/07/2015 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE AMAgenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 7, 2015
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Addition of Permitted Use Amended Process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2015, Imposing a Moratorium Upon the Application or Effectiveness
of Section 1.3.4(D) of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses by the Planning and
Zoning Board. (OPTION 1)
or
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to
the Addition of Permitted Uses in Nine Zone Districts. (OPTION 2 - Residential Zones Only)
or
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to
the Addition of Permitted Uses in All Zone Districts. (OPTION 3 – All Zones)
The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code to require City Council review of Addition of Permitted
Use (APU) applications in nine residential zone districts or in all zone districts or, alternatively, enact a
moratorium on such applications for a period no longer than five years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends no Land Use Code changes to Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (APU).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The ability of the Planning and Zoning Board to consider adding uses, which are already defined in the Land
Use Code, to zone districts where such uses are otherwise not permitted was introduced into the Land Use
Code in 2008.
A series of recent Land Use Code amendments have been made to address concerns that the degree of
flexibility afforded to developing property owners under the APU process has been provided at the expense of
neighborhood livability and character, and that the outcomes are too unpredictable. Over the past three years,
the Code requirements were expanded to include the requirement for two neighborhood meetings, additional
criteria that include safeguards that protect predominant neighborhood character, and the requirement that
changes to the location, size, design or operating characteristics to an existing APU trigger a new APU review.
The Planning and Zoning Board continues to receive input on these revisions, including a specific citizen
request to prohibit the APU process in nine (9) zone districts however, this input did not result in the requested
prohibition. The following predominantly residential zone districts where the APU would not be applicable, as
identified in the citizen request, are:
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 2
Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
Urban Estate District (U-E)
Residential Foothills District (R-F)
Low Density Residential District (R-L)
Low Density Mixed –Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B)
At its public hearing on June 2, City Council requested that staff develop potential options for a moratorium on
APU applications within the aforementioned districts.
Staff has prepared three options for Council consideration:
Option 1 – 5-year moratorium on APU applications.
The suggested moratorium period roughly coincides with the completion of the upcoming City Plan
Update.
Option 2 – City Council review of APU applications within 9 zone districts.
Under this approach, City Council would be the decision maker on standalone APU applications and those
development plan applications consolidated with a request for an APU. Council consideration would follow an
APU review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board. This option pertains solely to APU
applications within the nine aforementioned districts.
Option 3 – City Council review of APU applications in all zone districts.
The third option extends City Council purview of APU review as described in Option 2 to properties in
all zone districts.
Staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Board’s position that recent changes to the Land Use Code
sufficiently address neighborhood concerns and that no Code changes are needed at this time. However,
should the Council determine that a Land Use Code change is warranted, staff recommends Option 2, with the
suggested modification that the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) be removed from the list of
applicable zone district since the MMN districts typically abut commercial areas or other activity centers and
are more removed from established detached single family neighborhoods.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on May 14, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that
no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code. At its regular meeting on May 14, 2015, the
Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of the
Land Use Code (Attachment 1). The Board views the APU as the key tool for providing flexibility in land uses
as the community transitions to a small, urban city. Just as the Modification of Standard allows for flexibility in
specific design standards, the APU provides land use flexibility (see Attachment 2 - P & Z summary).
Agenda Item 23
Item # 23 Page 3
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has been no public outreach on the APU process since the adoption of the most recent revisions in
September 2014.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning and Zoning Board minutes (draft), May 14, 2015 (PDF)
2. Planning and Zoning Board memo to Council, June 23, 2015 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Planning and Zoning Board
May 14, 2015
DRAFT minutes
Project: 2015 Land Use Code Annual Revisions
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the bi-
annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions
to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last bi-annual
update in December of 2014.
Recommendation: Approval with exceptions
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Chief Planner Shepard introduced the topic, and he reviewed the items that were added since
the work session: item #1014, which was more of a housekeeping correction of conflicts, and
item #1015, Addition of a Permitted Use (APU), which calls for the prohibition of the APU in 9
zone districts. Planning Manager Gloss stated that Staff is proposing an amendment to the
parking standards relative to fraternities and sororities that would change the basis for the
standard from the number of bedrooms to the number of beds within bedrooms. He gave an
example of how the proposed standard would be different from the existing standard. He also
said there is an alternative compliance section that was suggested by Staff, which would be
evaluated by Staff on a case-by-case basis; for example, if travel were reduced through ride
share vehicles, the number of required parking spaces could be reduced.
Planning Manager Gloss also explained the recent changes to APU process. There is City
Council direction to Staff to bring APU changes to the P&Z Board that would amend 9 of the 25
zone districts (all residential) to not permit the APU provisions for non-residential uses.
Planning Manager Gloss named each of the affected zone districts. He stated that Staff feels
that this proposed code change is premature and that additional policy analysis be performed
for the following reasons:
there is an upcoming survey (next month) of neighborhood residents as well as
developers to address this topic;
this topic has had ongoing discussion throughout the current Old Town Neighborhoods
Plan; and
revision of this policy would be appropriate during the upcoming revisions to the City
Plan.
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, from Social Sustainability, reviewed the need for a seasonal community
overflow homeless shelter. Rather than building additional shelters, she proposed leveraging
existing community assets to provide this service. Because some of the locations used in the
past have had barriers due to the LUC restrictions, Council was asked to relieve barriers
annually on a case-by-case basis. Council requested a longer term plan to address this need.
She illustrated this situation with prior year events, discussing the roles played by each of the
city and county partners. She acknowledged the need to have an “agreement” in order to
sustain this project and provided statistics on past shelter usage.
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning and Zoning Board
May 14, 2015
DRAFT minutes
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Kirkpatrick asked whether any APUs had been considered for this request, and Ms.
Beck-Ferkiss responded that she had worked with the Planning Department and determined
that the present method would be best overall. There was also some discussion regarding the
hours of operation and the provision for transportation, both of which are based on the
parameter that this shelter is only for emergency situations. Member Hart asked about the
defined use of these overflow shelters, and Chief Planner Shepard stated that the number of
zone districts could be reduced in the lower density zones.
Member Hobbs asked if there are prescribed maximums for each shelter; Ms. Beck-Ferkiss
responded that the maximum is 50. Member Hansen asked what the maximum number of beds
is at all shelters, and Ms. Beck-Ferkiss responded that there are approximately 160 beds before
overflow needs. Member Hansen asked how many locations would be needed, and Ms. Beck-
Ferkiss replied that generally only one would be activated on an annual basis as overflow due to
cost. She also described how the shelters are operated. Member Schneider asked why the
APU isn’t being utilized. Chief Planner Shepard stated that the goal was not to preclude a
willing partner, since many different locations could be involved. The APU is still an option, and
the Director could approve the use; however, the APU can only be applied to a specific location.
Member Schneider feels that the APU process could provide relief because the process would
not have to be repeated
Secretary Schiager stated that three emails had been received in support of adding the
permitted use of a seasonal overflow shelter to the Land Use Code, and one email had been
received in opposition to the proposed change to the APU process.
Public Input
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Boulevard, stated that he feels there are missing items in
the LUC revisions that should have been addressed, including the overall SPAR process, which
he believes is still incompatible with City processes.
Katherine Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, spoke in support of the overflow shelters. She feels
that what is lacking in this LUC is community involvement. She also suggested increased
usage of “Next Door” to better communicate with the residents of the affected neighborhoods.
She feels that the City has been ignoring citizens who want to be involved in the APU process
improvement.
Richard Bunch, 1839 Fromme Prairie Way, is associated with the Community of Christ Church.
He was not aware of any issues or concerns raised, and he confirmed that his organization was
communicating with the staff at Catholic Charities. He is supporting the broadening of the LUC
to allow for use of his facility again as a part of a long-term plan for overflow shelters.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, expressed his appreciation to the Board for their
handling of the homeless shelter portion of the LUC and he requested that the Board withdraw
this portion of the revision approval for this hearing. He also commented on the definitions and
the development standard portions of the homeless shelters and pointed out some
Planning and Zoning Board
May 14, 2015
DRAFT minutes
inconsistencies in the language. He is also concerned that the APU issues are being included in
this round of revisions and was under the impression that they would be addressed in the fall.
Brian Tribby, 525 E. Drake Road, is on the Board of Directors for Homeward 2020. He stated
his concern with the statistics that were presented relative to the homeless situation in Fort
Collins. He is also concerned that our shelters are not available at times when they are needed.
He is favor of having a more workable plan going forward.
Russ McCahan, 815 Whedbee, is a founding Board member of Faith Family Hospitality (a
United Way program), which provides homeless shelters for families in Fort Collins and is also
associated with the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship. He has not been aware of specific
issues with running this shelter and wants to encourage the Board to address the homeless
situation in our community.
Tim Dolan, 4212 New Hampton Court, the Shelter Coordinator for Catholic Charities, presented
statistics on the shelter operations and shared the objectives of the shelter. He encouraged the
Board to continue to plan ahead for future shelter needs.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Ms. Beck-Ferkiss responded to citizen concerns by reviewing the staff enhancements
scheduled for next year. Chief Planner Shepard also explained the difference between group
homes and seasonal overflow shelters, which is based on the time frame that a homeless
person occupies a home/shelter.
Board members took a break at 8:05pm and reconvened at 8:15pm.
Board Deliberation
Member Hart stated that he feels that items #1004 (seasonal overflow shelters) and #1015
(amending the APU process) need additional discussion. Member Hart asked about item #1013
(required minimum parking for fraternities and sororities) related to counting the number of
shelter beds. Planning Manager Gloss responded that this item would be monitored based on
periodic inspections. Member Hobbs asked why beds are counted instead of occupants;
Planning Manager Gloss responded that either count is acceptable but to count beds is
customary and typical.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City
Council approve the 2015 Spring Land Use Code changes with the exception of items
#1004 and #1015, which merit additional discussion. Member Hobbs seconded the
motion. Vote: 6:0.
Regarding item #1004 (seasonal overflow shelter), Member Schneider is concerned that this
issue does not seem to be addressed on a long-term basis and feels there should be more
community outreach on this topic. Member Hobbs agreed and asked if Staff would consider
alternative ways to achieve the City’s goals. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick stated that she doesn’t
Planning and Zoning Board
May 14, 2015
DRAFT minutes
believe this issue should be approved without further review, but would support having it
expedited in the future. Member Hansen agreed that, while a solution is needed, he doesn’t
support making a quick decision. He asked if these shelters would have to be “renewed”
annually, and Chief Planner Shepard explained that it would need an annual renewal from an
operational standpoint, but not from a LUC perspective. The APU process would allow an
approved operation to continue indefinitely. Member Hart stated his support of finding a long-
term solution and would like to see participation within the affected communities.
Chair Carpenter stated her concern that this topic did not have appropriate public input, and she
questioned whether the process could be altered. She feels that the Board is in agreement and
would like to table this issue for now.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City
Council to table the spring 2015 Land Use Code change for item #1004 pending further
staff work. Member Schneider seconded. Chair Carpenter added a friendly amendment
that this review is expedited for review prior to the Fall LUC change recommendations.
Member Hart accepted this amendment. Vote 6-0.
Regarding item #1015 (amending the APU process), Member Hart commented that the LUC is
so prescriptive, which is why the APU is a useful tool in allowing changes to zoning and usage.
He is not in favor of these changes. Member Schneider is also opposed to changing these 9
zones, and he feels that approving this recommendation would be a disservice to the
community and City Plan. Member Hobbs doesn’t believe that allowing the continued use of the
APU process will cause unbridled development in neighborhoods where it isn’t welcome; since
APU’s undergo rigorous reviews, he believes that the process functions in a positive and
valuable manner. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick feels that this Board has been very consistent in their
past decisions and considers the APU process to be a useful tool for all zone districts. Member
Hansen agreed with the other Board members and would be open to other revisions aside from
this one. Member Hart feels that this Board has been careful to ensure that neighborhoods are
not negatively impacted.
Chair Carpenter feels that the Board has worked diligently to protect neighborhoods in their
APU reviews, and she would like the opportunity to discuss this recommendation before it is
considered by the City Council. She believes it serves a valuable role in the planning process
by preserving flexibility within such a prescriptive code.
Director Kadrich stated that this information had been presented to the City Council during a
work session at their request. Council had made a recommendation to include this topic in
further studies through the City Plan at a later date. They were also approached by citizens and
had asked for an update, which was provided in a summary format. She recommended that this
item be taken to Council for separate consideration, rather than as part of the bi-annual revision
process.
Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to
City Council not to amend 1.3.4, the Addition of Permitted Use, to remove the APU from
the nine zone districts listed by Staff. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote 6-0.
June 23rd, 2015
Dear members of City Council,
The Planning and Zoning Board is writing to respectfully make our position known on the Addition
of a Permitted Use (APU) process. As our board followed the City Council discussion from June
2nd, 2015, we were disheartened by the proposal for future action on the APU as the proposed
moratorium effectively removes the APU process for a 4-5 year time period until City Plan can be
completed and implemented. Given the state of our development pattern at this time and the slew
of community issues before us, it is our belief as your planning policy advisory board, that the APU
or some similar process is a necessary tool in our near-term future. A brief history of events and
points of consideration are detailed below:
• As detailed in your staff report, our board has spent a great deal of time over the past 3
years exploring a variety of process improvements to the development process including
engaging stakeholders with an interest in APU.
• Working with staff and City Council we have already made a variety of changes to the APU
process in an effort to address neighborhood concerns.
• While our board frequently has split decisions related to specific projects and development
applications, we have voted unanimously in support of the APU process on multiple
occasions over the past 3 years. The APU is process neutral and provides a rigorous but
fair tool for situations where exceptions to zoning standards are warranted.
• The recent discussion that occurred on council happened quickly and with limited
notification. It is our view that any action taken by council should accommodate a
reasonable amount of public engagement. This is a critical process tool and any potential
removal should require the necessary level of public engagement.
• There are two primary reasons our board believes the APU is necessary:
1) We dramatically changed our planning process in 1997. At that time we
developed our current land use code and included the APU as a process to
recognize that we couldn’t have possibly identified every specific future land use
that would occur in our city in 1997. The APU is a way to allow us to add uses to a
specific parcel such as allowing urban agriculture in the Bucking Horse
neighborhood. At the time that Bucking Horse went through the planning process,
urban agriculture had been identified in City Plan as a community goal but the
necessary land use code changes had not yet been enacted.
2) We believe the tool protects neighborhoods by limiting the scope of an
additional permitted use to a specific parcel. Without this tool, the only process
options would be to add a use into an entire zone district or to change the zoning
of a specific parcel, both of which are lengthy and expensive options for a
landowner, and would open the door for similar uses throughout the city in the
same zone classifications. As an example, our board recently reviewed a
proposal to amend the Land Use Code to allow the permitted use of homeless
overflow shelters in the majority of our zone districts. Rather than support this
change, which would have allowed these shelters to appear with minimal
ATTACHMENT 2
community engagement, our board felt that adding these uses through an APU
process was a more engaging solution for neighborhoods.. In comparison, the
APU looks at compatibility issues for a specific site. Any approval of an APU locks
the critical design attributes into the review and entitlement process so that the
density, height, housing model mix, access, etc. would all be part of a recorded
Project Development Plan and reviewed per the Land Use Code. In the case of
the APU only the use proposed would be allowed. This is vastly different than
adding uses to a zone district or changing the underlying zoning. In both such
instances a much wider variety of outcomes are possible.
• It is worth noting the underlying planning philosophy that drives our zoning and land use
code regulations. In almost all cases, the zone districts in our community have been
intentionally crafted to promote a mix of uses, especially at the neighborhood-scale. The
goal of this design is to try to accommodate the needs of residents within their
neighborhoods in an effort to promote walkable, compact neighborhoods, to encourage
environmental sustainability by reducing VMTs, and fostering a sense of neighborhood
connectivity.
• Lastly, as your staff report notes, the APU is used infrequently as a process tool. For all of
the development that occurs within our City, APU projects represent a very small percent
of all projects.
We would like to close by providing an example of the APU’s importance from a project we
approved this spring. We recently granted an APU to the Young People’s Learning Center, a
neighborhood-based preschool that has been in existence in the East Side Neighborhood since the
late 1960’s. Their site bridged two zone districts and they had a desire to add office space in a
second story addition so that they could provide on-site therapy to their preschool attendees in an
effort to better serve their families and to be in alignment with national best practices. This use
was allowed on half of their site but required an APU on the other half. The APU allowed the
applicant a process that accommodated an important need in their business, and arguably to our
community as well, while allowing the Planning & Zoning Board the ability to grant a compatible
and non-invasive additional use sensitive to the unique context of that specific site. The community
support of this project was overwhelming and we believe that the APU process enabled us to do
the right thing for the landowner and for our community.
It is our hope that Council will consider the full ramifications for placing a moratorium on the APU
as you continue your discussion. The Planning and Zoning Board strongly believes that we need
the APU or an equivalent tool in order to best serve the needs of our community.
Respectfully,
The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair
Jeff Hanson Gerald Hart
Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs
Jeffrey Schneider
Addition of Permitted Use Land Use Code Amendment
6-9-15 Cameron Gloss
ATTACHMENT 3
3 Regulatory Options
2
Option 1 – 5-year moratorium on APU applications.
Option 2 – City Council review of APU applications within 9
zone districts.
Option 3 – City Council review of APU applications in all zone
districts.
9 Zone Districts
3
• Rural Land Use (R-U-L)
• Residential Foothills Development (R-F)
• Urban Estate (U-E)
• Low Density Residential (R-L)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M)
• Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B)
• Low Density Mixed –Use Neighborhood (L-M-N)
• Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N)
3 Regulatory Options
4
Option 1 – 5-year moratorium on APU applications.
Option 2 – City Council review of APU applications within 9
zone districts.
Option 3 – City Council review of APU applications in all zone
districts.
- 1 -
OPTION 1
ORDINANCE NO. 079, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON THE APPLICATION OR EFFECTIVENESS
OF SECTION 1.3.4(D) OF THE LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO THE
ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code contains provisions whereby additional
uses can be permitted in zone districts under a process involving either the Planning and Zoning
Board or the Director; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed to members of the City Council from some
residential property owners that the addition of uses under the process provided in Section 1.3.4
within residential neighborhoods diminishes residential property values, increases
incompatibility between uses and causes unpredictable outcomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the addition of permitted use process established in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code should
be subject to a moratorium for a period of five-years from the effective date of this Ordinance or
until the effective date of an ordinance amending Section 1.3.4(D) or until the City Council has,
by ordinance, terminated this moratorium, whichever shall first occur with respect to any of the
following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
9. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That a moratorium be imposed upon the application or operation of
Section 1.3.4(D) of the Land Use Code and any related cross-reference thereto in the zone
districts specified below:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
- 2 -
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
9. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
Section 2. That such moratorium shall continue for a period of five (5) years from the
effective date of the this Ordinance or until the effective date of an ordinance amending Section
1.3.4(D) or until the Council has, by ordinance, terminated this moratorium, whichever shall first
occur.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
- 1 -
OPTION 2
ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 1.3.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES
IN NINE ZONE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code contains provisions whereby additional
uses can be permitted in zone districts under a process involving either the Planning and Zoning
Board or the Director; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed to members of the City Council from some
residential property owners that the addition of uses under the process provided in Section 1.3.4
within residential neighborhoods diminishes residential property values, increases
incompatibility between uses and causes unpredictable outcomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the addition of permitted use process established in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code should
be amended so that the decision on the proposed additional use will be made by the City Council
after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
9. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
. . .
(C) Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall
development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the
foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the Director's own initiative, the
Director, (or with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G) the Planning
- 2 -
and Zoning Board, or with respect to the zone districts listed in subsection (G) City
Council by ordinance, after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board, as
specifically authorized and limited in subsection (D) below) may add to the uses
specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all of the
following conditions:
. . .
(D) Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation.
(1) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing in
any zone district not listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be
detrimental to the public good and would be in compliance with the requirements
and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed
use by the Planning and Zoning Board must be specific to the proposed site and
shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (E) below and
provided further that such use is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the
zone district in which the proposed site is located.
(2) In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing
in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the Planning and Zoning Board may
add recommend to the City Council that a proposed use be added if the Board
specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good and
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section
3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed use by the Planning and Zoning
BoardCity Council must be specific to the proposed site and shall not be
considered for a text amendment under subsection (E) below and provided further
that such use is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in
which the proposed site is located. In considering the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Board and in determining whether a proposed use should be
added, the City Council by ordinance, shall follow the notice and hearing
requirements that are established for it pursuant to Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use
Code pertaining to text and map amendments.
. . .
(F) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone
district in accordance with this Section, the Director, (or the Planning and Zoning Board
with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or with respect to any zone
district listed in subsection (G) the City Council after recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Board, if applicable) may impose such conditions and requirements
- 3 -
(including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size and design) on such
use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code,
(2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-
area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts.
(G) The City Council shall make all final determinations regarding the addition of
permitted uses under subsection (D) with respect to property located in any of the
following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
9. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
- 1 -
OPTION 3
ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2015
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 1.3.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES
IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code contains provisions whereby additional
uses can be permitted in zone districts under a process involving either the Planning and Zoning
Board or the Director; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed to members of the City Council from some
residential property owners that the addition of uses under the process provided in Section 1.3.4
diminishes residential property values, increases incompatibility between uses and causes
unpredictable outcomes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that
the addition of permitted use process established in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code should
be amended so that the decision on the proposed additional use will be made by the City Council
after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board in all zone districts in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
. . .
(C) Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall
development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the
foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the Director's own initiative, the
Director (or the City Council by ordinance, after recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Board, as specifically authorized and limited in subsection (D) below) may add to
the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all
of the following conditions:
. . .
(D) Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation. In conjunction
with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project
development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing, the Planning
and Zoning Board may add recommend to the City Council that a proposed use be
- 2 -
added if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the
public good and would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3.5.1, provided that such addition of a proposed use by the
Planning and Zoning BoardCity Council must be specific to the proposed site and
shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (E) below and
provided further that such use is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the
zone district in which the proposed site is located. In considering the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and in determining whether a
proposed use should be added, the City Council shall follow the notice and
hearing requirements that are established for it pursuant to Section 2.9.4 of this
Land Use Code pertaining to text and map amendments.
. . .
(F) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone
district in accordance with this Section, the Director (or the City Council by ordinance,
after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board, if applicable) may impose
such conditions and requirements (including, but not limited to, conditions related to the
location, size and design) on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the
purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its
adopted components and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse
effects and impacts.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
- 3 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 21stday of July, A.D. 2015.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk