Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/02/2015 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 069, 2015, AMENDINGAgenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 2, 2015 City Council STAFF Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2015, Amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code to Exclude Certain Residential Zone Districts from the "Addition of Permitted Use" Process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to amend the Land Use Code so that the ability to apply the Addition of Permitted Use process in nine zone districts would not be allowed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that consideration of this item be delayed so that the APU process and standards can be more fully examined during the on-going Old Town Neighborhoods Plan (formerly Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Plan) and upcoming City Plan updates. 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. Since that time, 20 uses have been proposed and are summarized as follows: Summary of the 20 applications presented to the P & Z Board: Approved 8 Approved with Conditions 7 Denied 4 Withdrawn 1 Summary of all applications by Zone District (including the eight in a mixed-use Overall Development Plan) - total of 30 uses in 12 zone districts: U-E Urban Estate 3 R-L Low Density Residential 1 L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 2 N-C-L Neighborhood Conservation Low Density 3 N-C-M Neighborhood Conservation Medium 3 N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation Buffer 3 D Downtown 2 C-C-N Community Commercial North College 2 C-C-R Community Commercial Poudre River 1 C-G, General Commercial 2 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 2 H-C Harmony Corridor 2 I Industrial 6 Over the past two years, the Planning and Zoning Board formed a sub-committee to meet with a group of residents to address various issues related to the APU process in zone districts that permit varying degrees of residential uses. The result was that several revisions to the APU process were adopted as reflected in the attached summary. The Planning and Zoning Board continues to receive input on these revisions, including a specific citizen request to prohibit the APU process in nine specific residential zone districts however, this input did not result in the requested prohibition. On March 24, 2015, a Council work session was held to discuss potential options for amending the APU process. At the Work Session, Council requested that staff consider changes to the Land Use Code that would provide greater land use certainty within residential areas. Specific suggestions included: • Consider how we can better limit the location for specific uses within residential areas that will protect neighborhood interests. The Boarding House standards were cited as a specific example of regulations that appear to be working well. • Comprehensively map neighborhood boundaries and setup a database for neighborhood contacts. Note: A Neighborhood District initiative addressing this suggestion is currently underway. • Consider additional performance standards for non-residential APU applications. • Consider how, if at all, property values are impacted by APU approvals. The City has drafted a Development Review Process Survey that will be administered at the end of May, polling both citizens and members of the development community. Some of the questions posed within the survey will pertain to the inclusion of non-residential uses within residential areas, which appears to be one of the central issues raised by critics of the APU process. Staff is also in the process of engaging the residents and business owners in the Old Town Neighborhoods as part of the update to the East and West Side Neighborhood Plans. In addition, staff will soon begin the five- year update to City Plan. Combined with the survey, these planning efforts will afford ample opportunity to gather public input on the use of the APU process in the nine identified zones. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no financial or economic impacts associated with this item at this time. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its regular meeting on May 14, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that this item be continued to allow for further study. PUBLIC OUTREACH There has been no public outreach on the APU process since the adoption of the most recent revisions in September 2014. Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary, March 24, 2015 (PDF) 2. APU Amendments since 2013 (PDF) 3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 14, 2015 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 Addition of Permitted Use Land Use Code Amendments Since 2013 Text changes as noted in yellow below: 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (A) Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use. Under this process, an applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. For residential neighborhoods, land use flexibility shall be balanced with the existing residential character. Projects are expected to continue to meet the objectives of any applicable sub-area plan and City Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. (B) Applicability. This Section is applicable only under the following circumstances: (1) Where the proposed use is not listed as a permitted use in any zone district, does not fall within any existing use classification and is proposed as being appropriate to be added to the permitted uses in the zone district. If approved under this Section, such use shall be considered for inclusion into the zone district pursuant to Division 2.9; or (2) Where the proposed use is listed as a permitted use in one (1) or more zone district(s) and is proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development plan. (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 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: (1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. (2) 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) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. ATTACHMENT 2 (4) 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) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. (7) 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) Such use is not a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation facility. (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 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. (E) Codification of New Use. When any use has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C) 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) above. (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, if applicable) may impose such conditions and requirements (including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size, design, and operating characteristics) 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, and (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts. (G) Right of Future Changes to Approved APU. Approvals under this section are specific to the subject APU application. Any further changes to the use or its location, size, design or operating characteristics, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the impact to the surrounding area, will require a new Addition of Permitted Use. Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 14, 2015 Minutes Excerpt regarding the APU section of the Land Use Code. 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 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, Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2015 Page 2 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 the 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: x there is an upcoming survey (next month) of neighborhood residents as well as developers to address this topic; x this topic has had ongoing discussion throughout the current Old Town Neighborhoods Plan; and x 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. 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. Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2015 Page 3 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 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 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. Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2015 Page 4 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 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. Spring ‘15 Land Use Code Revisions ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Spring ‘15 Land Use Code Revisions • Two new items • Staff presentations – Item 1013 – Parking for Fraternities and Sororities – Item 1015 – Addition of Permitted Use – Item 1004 – Seasonal Overflow Shelters ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 2 New Items • Item 1014 Amend 2.11.2(E)(F)(H) – Administrative Review Procedures – to correct three internal conflicts with regard to the applicability of a staff report, notice and the size of the notification area. – Summary on page 8 of 9 of the Annotated Issue List. – Ordinance section number 2. ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 3 New Items • Amend 1.3.4 (B) Prohibiting Addition of Permitted Use applications uses in nine zones: R-U-L Rural Lands U-E Urban Estate R-F Residential Foothills R-L Low Density Residential N-C-L Neighborhood Conservation Low Density N-C-M Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation Buffer L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood M-M-N Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 4 Item 1013: Parking for Fraternities and Sororities Bedroom Configuration Existing Standards Proposed Standards 18 bedrooms (1 bed) 12 spaces 12 spaces 12 bedrooms (1 bed) 6 bedrooms (2 beds) 12 spaces 16 spaces 6 bedrooms (1 bed) 12 bedrooms (2 beds) 12 spaces 20 spaces ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 5 Overflow Shelter December 2014 – March 2015 ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 6 ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 7 Community of Christ Church Site & Zoning 2014 Community Response • Partnership between: Ø Catholic Charities Ø Community of Christ Church ØUnited Way of Larimer County Ø City of Fort Collins ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 9 Partners Roles Ø Catholic Charities – Shelter Operator Ø Community of Christ Church – Location Ø United Way of Larimer County- Fiscal Agent Ø City of Fort Collins – Facilitator & Funder vBFO funding available in 2015 and 2016 vFacilitate neighborhood meetings ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 10 MOU Provisions • Catholic Charities agreed to be shelter operator – Supervise clients and volunteers during hours of operation – Responsible for upkeep of facility – Disperse motel vouchers for families – Community contact ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 11 MOU Provisions • Dates of Operation: November –March • Hours of Operation: 10pm-6:15am • Staffing: 2 Catholic Charities Employees on site • Dry Shelter – Breathalyzers administered • Maximum number of guests: 20 women ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 12 Results and Moving Forward Ø Provided 528 nights of Shelter – average 4 per night – Busiest night = 10 women • No complaints or issues Ø Potential Partners for 2015 v Community of Christ – NCB vSummitview Church – RL (arterial) vSt. Joseph’s Knights of Columbus Hall - NCB ©Copyright 2014 City of Fort Collins. All Rights Reserved. 13 - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 069, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 1.3.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS FROM THE “ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE” PROCESS 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 not apply to any of the following 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) • 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). 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 (A) Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use. Under this process, an applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and - 2 - including the subject property. For the residential neighborhoods specified in paragraph (B) below, in order to ensure land use stability and in order to preserve the existing residential character of such neighborhoods, the addition of permitted use process shall not be availableland use flexibility shall be balanced with the existing residential character. Projects are expected to continue to meet the objectives of any applicable sub-area plan and City Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. (B) Applicability. This Section is applicable only under the following circumstances: (1) Where the proposed use is not listed as a permitted use in any zone district, does not fall within any existing use classification and is proposed as being appropriate to be added to the permitted uses in the zone district. If approved under this Section, such use shall be considered for inclusion into the zone district pursuant to Division 2.9; or (2) Where the proposed use is listed as a permitted use in one (1) or more zone district(s) and is proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development plan. (3) Where the proposed use is not located in any of the following zone districts: a. Rural Lands District (R-U-L) b. Urban Estate District (U-E) c. Residential Foothills District (R-F) d. Low Density Residential District (R-L) e. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N) f. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N) g. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) h. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M) i. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) . . . - 3 - Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of June, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of July, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 7th day of July, A.D. 2015. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk