Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/01/2015 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2015, AMENDINAgenda Item 23 Item # 23 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 1, 2015 City Council STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code Pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses in Eight Zone Districts. (Option A or Option B) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 eight residential zone districts. Second Reading of this Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2015, was postponed to this date and time to allow time to develop the revised final ordinance. Two APU process options are proposed for City Council consideration:  Option A is a bifurcated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would make a decision on a development plan conditional upon Council approval of the APU application and then forward a recommendation to Council on the APU.  Option B is a consolidated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would review a consolidated APU/development plan application and make a recommendation to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 080, 2015, Option B, which requires City Council review of consolidated Development Plan/APU applications. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At its public hearing on July 21, 2015, City Council requested that staff develop a revised ordinance amending the APU provisions of the Land Use Code. As the Planning and legal staff began preparing the APU process ordinance for City Council consideration, it became clear that more work needed to be done to clarify how related land development applications associated with an APU request would be reviewed by City Council. Staff has prepared two options for Council consideration:  Option A is a bifurcated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would make a decision on a development plan conditional upon Council approval of the APU application and then forward a recommendation to Council on the APU. City Council would separately consider an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision on the development plan, if any.  Option B is a consolidated process where the Planning and Zoning Board would review a consolidated APU/development plan application and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would be the final decision maker on the APU/development plan; therefore, there would be no appeal process for either application. Agenda Item 23 Item # 23 Page 2 Both options presented would apply solely to the following eight (8) predominantly residential zone districts:  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)  Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)  Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)  Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Since the date of the First Reading, staff has received a citizen request to consider additional changes to the APU provisions of the Land Use Code related to the public notification and City Council public hearing review processes. Under Section 2.2.6 of the Land Use Code, all property owners within 800 feet of the parcel of land proposed for development are mailed a written notice regarding the development application. A request has been received to extend the standard distance by an additional 520 feet for a total of 1,320 feet (one quarter mile). Staff is not convinced that a Code amendment is warranted since all rezoning requests for parcels under 40 acres require an 800 foot notice radius, the Director has the discretion to expand the notification area under the present Code, and the staff routinely exercises this right by expanding the radius so that appropriate notification is provided. Additionally, a request was made to create a unique order of City Council public hearing proceeding for APU applications, whereby: 1. Equal presentation time is provided for the applicant and citizens in opposition and there is a procedure for any organized group(s) to give a single presentation; 2. There is a balanced structure between participants, so if there is a rebuttal period for the applicant there is also an opportunity for the citizens in opposition to offer rebuttal; 3. There is no staff recommendation; and 4. The staff presentation before the City Council is unaltered from that provided at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Staff does not recommend adoption of any of the suggested changes to the established order of proceedings since such changes would be inconsistent with the procedures for City Council review of quasi-judicial zoning or rezoning applications. On September 15, 2015, staff will present for Council consideration a resolution adopting revisions to the Council Meeting Rules of Procedure establishing the details of the process for consideration of the matters to come before Council under either Option A or Option B. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its regular meeting on August 13, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board voted (4-2) to recommend that City Council adopt Option B, the consolidated process. Planning and Zoning Board continues to express its perspective that no changes be made to Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code and the procedures for APU reviews; however, the majority of Board members indicated a preference for the APU and development plan applications to be reviewed as one interrelated package, given the two options provided. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, July 7, 2015 (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 13, 2015 (draft) (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Agenda 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: ATTACHMENT 1 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 & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 1 Other Business Addition of Permitted Use – City Council Process Options Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief description of this topic, stating that a specific process had not been solidified for evaluation of a development plan associated with an APU. Legal and Planning Staff have developed 2 options:  Option A is a draft ordinance where City Council would review the APU as a separate action, conditioning its approval on the successful approval of a development plan by the P&Z Board. The City Council would hear potential appeals of a P&Z Board decision on development plans.  Option B is a consolidated process whereby the P&Z Board would review both the APU and the development plans but would not take action; rather it would be a recommendation to City Council, who would then evaluate both applications at a public hearing and make a decision. There would be no appeal process at that point. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hobbs clarified that this process has been characterized as “spot” rezoning; he asked whether, in a rezoning situation, if an Overall Development Plan (ODP) is also linked to the APU and if it would also go straight to City Council as a linked issue. Planning Manager Gloss responded by saying that, typically, an ODP would seldom be coupled with an APU. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the code currently allows this to occur, although Option B has excluded final plans. Public Input Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, has a concern with the two options being offered for the APU process. She does not feel either option represents the citizen concerns that have been brought up in the past. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, also has concerns with the APU options. He discussed the language of “prohibited uses” and “detrimental to public good”, stating he does not believe that the standard will impact future citizen participation. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, stated his concern about the APU criteria, not the process. He acknowledged that the hearing process is of vital importance. He also believes the current process is biased against citizens; he would like to see citizens given more time for presentations and rebuttals. Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns Planning Manager Gloss responded to the citizen concerns by saying the P&Z Board could consider some of the citizen suggestions. ATTACHMENT 2 Planning & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 2 Board Questions and Staff Response Member Schneider stated his disappointment that this process has been ongoing with no acceptable resolution; he is more in favor of Option B, but would like to see more time spent developing this process overall. Member Heinz agreed and is in favor of continuing the discussion. Planning Manager Gloss confirmed that, while City Council is scheduled to review the P&Z Board recommendation on September 1st, this item could still be continued to a later date. Member Hart suggested that one of the options could be recommended with work continuing on the process. He explained the use of “detrimental to the public good”, and he suggested that a future process could allow citizens to respond to Staff. He prefers Option B, but acknowledged that he is not truly satisfied with either option at this time. Member Hobbs stated the positive aspects of allowing citizen time for rebuttals as well as the drawbacks (having large citizen groups requiring extensive amounts of time). He also suggested the possibility of having a different process for APU submittals. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that the P&Z Chair can run each meeting and grant citizen and applicant time to speak as needed. More discussion continued among Board members. Member Hart suggested that this process be reviewed at a future work session. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified both options and then stated that the P&Z Board can make any recommendation to City Council they wish, including no recommendation at all. Member Heinz suggested that a rebuttal period for citizens be added to the APU process as well. Chair Carpenter suggested that the Board select one of the options and allow City Council to modify it as necessary. The Board is concerned that there is a moratorium currently in effect, so passing one of these options would at least lift the moratorium at present. Member Hart motioned that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve Option B, Ordinance No. 080, 2015, relating to amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code, pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses in eight zone districts. Member Schneider seconded. Chair Carpenter added a friendly amendment to this motion that City Council gets the minutes from the P&Z hearing to provide background for this recommendation. In addition, Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that “final plans” will be removed from Option B. Member Hart amended his motion to reflect these amendments. Member Schneider restated his reservations with this recommendation. Member Hobbs cannot support this motion, because both options appear to be narrowing the options for the community, and they reduce the citizen options for appealing decisions. He stated that he would prefer to keep the APU process status quo. Member Hart agrees, but he would still like to move the process forward. He feels that the APU has been an effective tool in the past with very few times being overturned. Member Hansen will not support either recommendation; he feels the long-term ramifications of putting either of these options in place would overshadow the current issue of causing project delays. Member Schneider clarified that the process of the hearing is separate from this ordinance; therefore, he questioned whether both should be considered simultaneously. Member Heinz will somewhat support Option B, with the idea that further work will be performed in the future. Chair Carpenter will support the motion because City Council requested the P&Z Board to choose among these options and will trust City Council’s final decision. Vote: 4:2, with Member Hansen and Member Hobbs opposed. Addition of Permitted Use Land Use Code Amendment 9-1-15 Cameron Gloss ATTACHMENT 3 Two APU Process Options 2 Option A: Bifurcated Process • Planning and Zoning Board decision maker on development plan, subject to Council APU approval • City Council decision maker on APU • Possible appeal of development plan to Council Option B: Consolidated Process • Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on APU/development plan • City Council decision maker on consolidated APU/development plan Public Notification Requirements 3 • Minimum Notification = 800 feet • Rezoning for Parcels < 40 acres = 800 feet • Developments > 100 mf units = 1,000 feet • Notification area can be extended at Director’s discretion Public Hearing Proceedings 4 1: Director Overview 2: Applicant Presentation 3: Staff Presentation, including recommendation 4: Staff Response to Applicant Presentation 5: Public Testimony 6: Applicant Response 7: Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response Applicable Zone Districts 5 City Council review of APU applications within 8 zone districts: • 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) - 1 - OPTION A 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 EIGHT 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. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) 7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) 8. 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) Procedures and 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 and Zoning Board, or with respect to the zone districts listed in subsection (G) City Council by ordinance, after recommendation from the Planning and - 2 - 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 The following procedures and required findings shall apply to Addition of Permitted Use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the “Primary Application” for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with the Primary Application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the Addition of Permitted Use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (1) (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. (2) (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. (3) (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. (5) (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. (7) (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must - 3 - take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. (8) (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15- 452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. (2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project not located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(2) to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The Addition of a Permitted Use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below. (3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project located, in whole or in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use shall be determined by the City Council after a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation on the Addition of Permitted Use. The Planning and Zoning Board shall remain the decision maker on the Primary Application. (a) The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(2) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. (b) 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 zonings and rezonings of areas of no more than six-hundred forty acres in size, as set forth in Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code. (c) In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in subsection (B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds - 4 - that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The City Council’s action on the Addition of Permitted Use shall be by ordinance. The Addition of a Permitted Use by City Council shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D). The City Council’s decision on the Addition of Permitted Use shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. (d) If the Addition of Permitted Use is denied, any Primary Application that has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon the City Council’s approval of an Additional Permitted Use under this Section shall be automatically terminated and made null if such condition is not met; and any pending appeal of such conditional approval shall also be automatically terminated if such condition is not met, whereupon the appellant shall be promptly refunded any appeal fee that was paid to the City. (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 City 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 - 5 - 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. (E) (D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Code, at the first convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under subsection (C)(1) above. (F) (E) 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 the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), the City Council after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board 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. (G) (F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section are specific to the subject Addition of Permitted Use application. Any changes to the use or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new Addition of Permitted Use. (G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City Council shall make all final determinations regarding anythe Aaddition of Ppermitted Uuses under subsection (DC)(3) with respect to propertya project located, in whole or in part, 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. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) - 6 - 7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) 8. 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 1st day of September, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk - 1 - OPTION B 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 EIGHT 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. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) 7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) 8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). WHEREAS, in order to effectively determine whether to approve a proposed additional use in the aforementioned zone districts, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City Council be the decision maker for the land use application associated with the proposed additional use after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board. 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 . . . - 2 - (C) Procedures and 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 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 The following procedures and required findings shall apply to Addition of Permitted Use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the “Primary Application” for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with the Primary Application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the Addition of Permitted Use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use as described in subsection (B)(1) which conforms to all of the following criteria: (1) (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. (2) (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. (3) (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. (5) (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. - 3 - (7) (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. (8) (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15- 452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. (2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project not located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(2) to be determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The Addition of a Permitted Use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below. (3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a Primary Application for a project located, in whole or in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use shall be determined by the City Council in conjunction with the Primary Application after recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board on both the Primary Application and the Addition of Permitted Use. The recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board and designation of the City Council as the decision maker for the Addition of Permitted Use and the Primary Application are specific exceptions to Section 2.1.1, applicable only to this Section. The City Council shall first decide the Addition of Permitted Use application and, if approved, then decide the Primary Application. If the Addition of Permitted Use is denied, then the Primary Application shall also be denied as described in subsection (c) below. (a) The Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to City Council for the Primary Application shall follow the applicable procedures and standards contained in the Land Use Code for the type of Primary Application at issue. Any required notice shall include information regarding both the Primary Application and the Addition of Permitted Use application. The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning Board may - 4 - recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection (B)(2) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. (b) In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in subsection (B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In deciding the Addition of Permitted Use application for uses described in subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not specifically listed as a "Prohibited Use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. The City Council’s action on the Addition of Permitted Use shall be by ordinance. The Addition of a Permitted Use by City Council shall be specific to the proposed project and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D). The City Council’s decision on the Addition of Permitted Use shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. (c) If the Addition of Permitted Use is denied, the ordinance denying the Addition of Permitted Use shall also deny the Primary Application. Such denial shall not be appealable and if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. If the Addition of Permitted Use is approved, City Council shall decide the Primary Application, in conformance with the applicable procedures and standards contained in the Land Use Code for the type of Primary Application at issue with appropriate substitution of the City Council as the decision maker in such procedures. Any required notice shall include information regarding both the Primary Application and the Addition of Permitted Use application. City Council’s action on the Primary Application shall be by ordinance. The City Council’s decision on the Primary Application shall not be appealable, and if applicable, shall be subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code Article 2, Division 2.13. (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 - 5 - 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 City 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. (E) (D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above, such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Code under Division 2.9. If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text of this Code, at the first convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9. If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under subsection (C)(1) above. (F) (E) 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 the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), the City Council after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board 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. - 6 - (F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section are specific to the subject Addition of Permitted Use application. Any changes to the use or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new Addition of Permitted Use. (G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City Council shall make all final determinations regarding anythe Aaddition of Ppermitted Uuses and associated Primary Application under subsection (DC)(3) with respect to propertya project located, in whole or in part, 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. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) 7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) 8. 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 1st day of September, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of September, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk