The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/02/2019 - ITEMS RELATING TO VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OAgenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 2, 2019 City Council STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2019, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2019, Amending the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Regarding Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Variances to Certain Land Use Code Standards. The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code that are generally routine in nature that have been identified since the last update in February 2019. The proposed change to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director to process certain variances is presented as a separate ordinance because the change is not necessarily routine in nature and would allow the Director to process certain variances currently reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications. While most revisions are bundled and adopted on an annual basis, other changes may occur as needed so the Land Use Code retains maximum effectiveness. The proposed changes are offered to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and user friendliness of the Code. Additional details regarding the changes are contained in the attachments to this Agenda Item Summary. The proposed change to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director to process certain variances is presented as a separate ordinance because the change is not necessarily routine in nature and would allow the Director to process certain variances currently reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The variances the Director would review would be limited to the following: (1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent. (2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot. (3) In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase of up to ten (10) percent, provided the increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. (4) Building height increase of up to one (1) foot. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number of Variance Applications 17 26 27 35 51 41 38 47 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 16, 2019, regular hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously adopted staff recommendation that City Council approve the revisions. Additionally, at its May 9, 2019, regular meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended to City Council approval of the revision to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director to process certain variances. PUBLIC OUTREACH The proposed changes were listed on "This Week in Development Review," a weekly online notice that is posted on the Planning Department's website and sent to approximately 435 subscribers. ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Issues (PDF) 2. Description of Issues (PDF) 3. Ordinance Index of Issues (PDF) 4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 16, 2019 (draft) (PDF) 5. Zoning Board of Appeals minutes, May 9, 2019 (draft) (PDF) Land Use Code Issues Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Issue ID# Issue Name 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. 1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. 1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. 1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units 1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to-floor allowance 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. 1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on platted lots. 1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. 1105 Amend 2.10 - Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals - to allow certain variances to be considered by the Director instead of the Z.B.A. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. 1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. 1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Issue ID# Issue Name 1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Annotated Issue List Land Use Code Maintenance Process 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting. N.A. N.A. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 1N.A. N.A. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. This section covers all aspects of landscaping and has not been updated since initial adoption. There have been many changes over the years to best practices for landscaping design, installation, and mitigation. Issues related to mitigation for the Emerald Ash Borer, payment in lieu, tree cut-outs, tree protection and critical root zone are now addressed. The propose solution is a comprehensive update of the Landscaping section. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 6 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. 7 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. 1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. The problem is that the current Code explicitly details all the Stormwater features to be inspected with their inspections being at the point of installation. Adding new features, or points of inspection, would require a Code change. Instead, the proposed language will simply require inspections of specific private improvements and features at certain points of installation as called out in the Development Certification Checklist required to be submitted to Water Utilities Engineering. Any changes could then efficiently be made on the Development Certification Checklist as they arise. The proposed solution is to delete the specific references to porous pavers, bioretention cells, rain gardens, sand filters, extended detention basins and underground treatment and replace with a broad reference to the Development Certification Checklist. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 10 Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 9 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist. 1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. The list of utilities and services for which compliance must be achieved does not include City’s newest utility - Broadband / Fiber Optic. Add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 10 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list. 1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units A relatively recent development trend is to orient single family attached dwellings such that they do not front on public streets, private streets, or street-like private drives. Instead, these dwellings front on connecting walkways or major walkway spines and face common area open space often referred to as greenbelts, or greenways, or green courts. This results in the back of units facing a private alley and consisting only of the garage with no direct doors into the individual unit. Consequently, emergency responders and their equipment can only gain access to these dwellings and stage their equipment from these private alleys at the rear of the units. But in order to get into the unit, emergency responders must go around three sides of the building to the front. Such arrangements also require alleys to be named and that addresses be posted in the back. The standard requirement for building perimeter access for fire fighting in the Fire Code for the Poudre Fire Authority is 150 feet as measured from the designated fire lane around the building. While this standard is adequate for addressing the physical building perimeter, and may be slightly increased if there is an automatic fire sprinkler systems, it is silent with regard to doors that provide access into individual units for medical emergencies. The proposed solution is to add a requirement that at least one door provide direct access for emergency responders into an individual single family attached unit and not be greater than 150 feet from where emergency responders and their equipment can stage and this access cannot be through the garage. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 13 3.5.2(D)(3) Requires at least one door into single family attached dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging area. 1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 10 discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to- floor allowance This section allows the height of a residential structure to measured as a maximum of 25 feet from floor-to-floor. This standard contains two references: commercial and residential. The reference to residential was inadvertently not deleted at the time a newer standard was adopted which calls for the maximum vertical height of 12 feet, eight inches, for each residential story, which is now the prevailing standard. The two standards are in conflict. Also, at this time, adding a reference to industrial would provide further explanation as industrial buildings are more likely to rely on greater distances between floors than commercial buildings such as offices, hotels, retail stores and the like. The proposed solution is to delete the reference to residential in the standard that allows commercial buildings to have a maximum height of 25 feet from floor-to-floor and add a reference to industrial buildings. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 14 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential, adds industrial to measuring maximum building height. 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. The creation of private sector wireless communication networks has evolved since the adoption of the federal Wireless Telecommunication Act of 1996. As originally implemented, monopoles, ranging in height from 40 to 100 feet, were deemed adequate to provide coverage over a specified geographic area. Now, with new technologies, and a higher concentration of users in urban areas, providers are building networks that use a combination of facilities (pole-mounted antennas) and equipment (building-mounted antennas) that are at lower heights but more frequently dispersed. Recently staff has processed two Requests for Additions of Permitted Use to allow Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the R-L zone. Both were located on non- residential properties, mitigated by stealth installation and both were approved. With large areas of the City zoned R-L, and with the demand by consumers for coverage and market response to provide coverage, allowing Facilities in the R-L would be appropriate but restricted to non-residential properties. As mitigation, installations using stealth techniques, such as church steeples, bell towers or silos would be required. The proposed solution is to add Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type Two permitted accessory use in the R-L zone with standards restricting installations to non- residential properties and using stealth technology as visual mitigation. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 15 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2 Accessory Use in R-L. 16 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 10 1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. Storage units are a land use that is contrary to the vision for urban evolution of synergistic uses in the C-S-zoned portions of the North College Avenue corridor. The vision is explained in the adopted North College Corridor Plan. An Urban Renewal Plan, Market Analysis, and an Infrastructure Funding Plan are also in place to help implement the vision The City and its Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) continually seek solutions to remedy problems of past ad hoc subdivision of land when the area was the outskirts of town along US Highway 287. Examples of such problems are defective and inadequate street layout and faulty lot layout in relation to accessibility, utility infrastructure, drainage, flooding, and overall functionality as part of the city. Retrofitting needed infrastructure and improving functionality generally depend upon cooperation and participation across various existing land parcels. Assembly of land or land pooling by owners of multiple parcels is needed in some cases to form more cohesive development. These issues are described in plan documents. The risk of a new storage unit development project creating a potentially new obstacle to achieving the vision and goals has been recognized by staff and the URA CAG for some time. There have been inquiries by owners where this would be the case. In discussions with staff, inquiries have so far not become actual development proposals. Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities are a relatively expedient use with minimal need for connectivity or public infrastructure, creating spots of low activity with no synergy with surrounding parcels. Storage uses exist and are appropriate in an Industrial zone portion of the area on the east side of North College Avenue. A significant amount of public investment has been expended in the corridor to implement the vision and remedy problems. Local, State and Federal funds have been used to construct major public improvements from Jefferson Street to State Highway 1 including street, railroad, drainage, and other utility infrastructure with associated beautification and pedestrian improvements. Staff’s latest estimate of public investment since adoption of the North College Corridor Plan in 1995 is in the range of $50-60 million. This investment has resulted in economic activity and real estate development projects such as the North College Marketplace, Lyric Cinema, Crowne Apartments at Old Town North, and Jax Expansion among others. Since the original 1995 North College Corridor Plan and its associated zoning, conditions have changed to the point where there is positive economic momentum resulting in urban evolution, but crucial improvements are still needed in key portions of the area where a storage unit development would be incompatible. Delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities from the North College Avenue corridor area in C-S, Service Commercial zone district. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 20 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from N. College in C-S zone. 1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 4 of 10 single family on platted lots. The Applicability Section at the beginning of Article 3 contains terminology and language that confuses applicability to single family houses. The proposed solution is to amend the language to add clarity with regard to single family detached dwellings. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 5 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family detached dwellings. 1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. The definition of ‘Neighborhood Center’ in the LMN zone does not match the standards for the LMN zoning district in Article 4. The difference: the LMN zone district includes mixed-use dwelling units as an option for one of two uses that must be combined in order to qualify a development as a Neighborhood Center; while the definition in Article 5 mentions “a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses…”. Thus the question is whether or not the inclusion of a dwelling unit above a nonresidential use qualifies a development as a Neighborhood Center. The LMN zone district list of Permitted Uses includes the following (note that mixed-use dwelling units are included): “Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics; community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; limited indoor recreation establishments; open-air farmers markets; and places of worship or assembly.” Likewise a Land Use Standard in the LMN zone district states: 4.5(D)(3)(c) “Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly; convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics…” Contrary to those LMN standards, the definition of Neighborhood Center mentions two nonresidential uses: “Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses and an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for a Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.” Amend 5.1.2, the definition of Neighborhood Center, to match the description in LMN zone district per 4.5(D)(3). Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 21 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for consistency with LMN permitted use. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 5 of 10 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. Since the adoption of the Code, projects that are not required to be subject to a public hearing, either Type One or Two, were referred to as Building Permit Review and then later renamed to Basic Development Review (BDR). Such projects include uses that are fundamentally considered compatible with the underlying zone district and are generally not complex. All relevant standards are applied to these projects. The original Code section that describes the overview of the development review procedures made no mention of this review process because there was, at that time, no formal routing, commenting, project tracking and no requirement for a public hearing. Over time, however, BDR’s have become more formalized. Consequently, the Code would be more current and user-friendly if BDR’s were described in the overview. The solution is to add references to BDR’s in the overview section and make minor edits for clarity. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review. 1105 Amend 2.10 - Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals - to allow certain variances to be considered by the Director instead of the Z.B.A. Due to the growth of the City and the volume of cases being required to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, there has been an increase in the Board’s workload as well as staff time. Further, staff finds that in the recent past, approximately 25% of the variances are minor in scope and routinely approved by the Board. In order to address the over- processing of minor cases, and to allow more time for consideration of more complex issues, staff recommends that the Director, or his delegee such as the Zoning Manager, be granted the authority to be the decision maker for minor, routine cases of a limited scope. Our peer communities have implemented this approach successfully. This process improvement will be more efficient for homeowner-applicants, builders, contractors, architects, land planners, staff and board members with no loss of quality control. In circumstances where the Director deems appropriate, eligible cases may be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed solution is to amend the Variances procedures to grant the Director, or his delegee, the authority to be the decision maker in certain cases. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2.10 Amends the procedures and criteria for Variances to allow Director review in limited cases. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. We recently adopted a Code revision that removes the obligation to provide notice (sign posting, newspaper published notice and written letter to A.P.O.’s) for all B.D.R.’s that Problem Statement Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 6 of 10 are not Minor Subdivisions that create new lots. Since all B.D.R.’s are appealable, there remains a burden to let the public know that a decision has been made. With the new revision, we have moved from providing an abundance of notice to providing a dearth of notice. If a B.D.R. decision is appealable, but there is no practical manner for an abutting property owner to become informed of such decision, then the appeal process lacks transparency. The proposed solution is to provide post-decision notice to abutting property owners. (Again, for Minor Subdivisions that yield a new lot, full notification is already required.) This notice would also include appeal information. Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 4 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. City Council adopted Resolution 2016-074 expressing Council’s intent and General Policy Considerations Regarding Night Sky Objectives (September 20, 2016). The Resolution states that, “the City will incorporate dark sky policies and standards into Building Codes, Land Use Codes, and Streetscape standards when applicable and appropriate.” An interdisciplinary staff team continues to work with a consultant to comprehensively address lighting issues and promote dark sky policies both on a city-wide basis, and out of the city in the case of natural areas. In the short term, however, staff has identified two quick fixes to acknowledge the advent of LED (light emitting diodes) technology and to implement a maximum correlated color temperature (CCT) to reduce glare. These two revisions have been identified as non- controversial and are being practiced now but on a recommendation basis only. Codifying at this time allows for the implementation of dark sky policies in a timely manner. The proposed solution is to adopt the revisions identified by staff working on the dark sky policies. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 8 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees Kelvin. 8 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. Under (E)(1), the sentence that allows stated buffer zone dimensions to be adjusted based on performance standards is currently worded in a way that confuses the concept. General buffer zone dimensions are stated in a table, but those dimensions are accompanied by a proviso that the decision maker may reduce a dimension if listed performance standards are achieved. Current wording, however, suggests that the decision maker must reduce a stated dimension if necessary to achieve the listed performance standards. It would never Problem Statement Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 7 of 10 be necessary to reduce a dimension to achieve the performance standards, that is simply incorrect wording. Rather, the performance standards are to allow a dimension to be reduced if the performance standards are met. This wording has caused awkward and confusing discussion in at least two development projects where a dimension was reduced based on achieving the performance standards, but it was not necessary to do so. Under (E)(1)(c), the current language states that only existing trees and vegetation that are deemed significant per 3.2.1 - Tree Protection Standards for Landscape Plans - are to be preserved. Staff has found, however, that existing non-significant trees and vegetation have habitat value and must be considered for preservation and accounted for in any evaluation by an Ecological Characterization Study. The proposed solution to (E)(1) is to reword the language for clarity. The proposed solution to (E)(1)(c) is to revise and add language that states all non-native trees and vegetation must be considered for preservation even though some species may not be considered significant under the Tree Protection standards for Landscape Plans in 3.2.1(F). This would allow clusters of non-native species such as Siberian Elms and Russian Olive to be considered for habitat and ecological values. Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 12 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are not significant to be evaluated for ecological value. 12 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended. 1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. The current Code section is in need of updating and enhanced specificity. City Environmental Planning staff have encountered numerous development projects where trees proposed for removal do not meet tree mitigation criteria in 3.2.1 under Landscaping yet provide habitat value, as determined by Environmental staff during site visits and/or biologists in ecological characterization studies. While tree mitigation in 3.2.1 accounts for lost ecological and environmental value, habitat value is secondary to tree condition, caliper and species, thereby disqualifying trees with habitat value from mitigation. There is a need to allow environmental planners to mitigate for lost habitat value to better reflect the intent of section 3.4.1 of the Code, which strives to protect natural habitats and features on the site and in the vicinity of the site during development. The proposed Code revision allows mitigation for trees not covered under Section 3.2.1 of the Code on properties containing a habitat buffer zone. Mitigation plantings will occur within the natural habitat buffer zone to maintain the site’s habitat and ecological function. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 11 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat value of non- native trees and vegetation. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 8 of 10 1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 17 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 18 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and Problem Statement Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 9 of 10 maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights. It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height limitations. The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 19 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. When the LUC was established, there was no formalized Basic Development Review procedure. These projects were considered minor in scope and permitted subject to simply applying for a building permit and the review process was informally managed by the zoning administrator as a building permit review. As time went on, however, these projects became more complex requiring a review process more comparable to a P.D.P. versus a building permit. The term Basic Development Review was initiated along with a more formal review process, which now includes an appeal procedure and contained within a relatively new section 2.18. Currently, under the Common Development Review Procedures – Step 12: Appeals, there is no reference to Basic Development Review. Add a reference to Basic Development Review under the common development review procedures. Problem Statement Proposed Solution Overview Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 3 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR. Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Land Use Code Revisions Annotated Ordinance Index Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 2.10 Amends the procedures and criteria for Variances to allow Director review in limited cases. Amend 2.10 - Variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals - to allow certain variances to be considered by the Director instead of the Z.B.A. 1105 1 N.A. N.A. 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting. 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review. Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development Review and make other minor edits. 2 1103 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR. Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized. 3 1117 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters. Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision. 4 1107 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family detached dwellings. Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on platted lots. 5 1101 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. 6 1093 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees. 7 1093 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees Kelvin. Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 8 1109 Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 3 Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references. Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology. 8 1109 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist. Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review Checklist. 9 1094 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list. Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved. 10 1095 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat value of non- native trees and vegetation. Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1. 11 1111 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended. Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. 12 1110 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are not significant to be evaluated for ecological value. Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value. 12 1110 3.5.2(D)(3) Requires at least one door into single family attached dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging area. Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units 13 1096 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential, adds industrial to measuring maximum building height. Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to-floor allowance 14 1098 Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2 Accessory Use in R-L. Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 15 1099 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L. Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth. 16 1099 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 17 1113 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height. 18 1115 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height, dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage houses. Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height. 19 1116 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from N. College in C-S zone. Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone. 20 1100 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for consistency with LMN permitted use. Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency. 21 1102 Tuesday, June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Planning & Zoning Board May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 None reported Staff Response None reported Board Questions / Deliberation None reported Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make the recommendation to City Council to update the annual land use code amendments as presented at this hearing. This is based on the agenda materials, information in the packets, information that was presented during the work session, this hearing tonight and the Board discussion on this item. This information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are to be adopted by this Board. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 6:0. 6-B. Land Use Code Revisions Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding revision to the Land Use Code. This revision would allow minor variances that are considered routine to be authorized by the Director. This revision is accompanied by the annual Spring package of revisions to the Land Use Code but is a separate Ordinance due to the new authorization. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no citizen emails or letters had been received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Completed in 6-A Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation None noted Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make the recommendation to City Council land use code revisions to law variances by the Director. This is based on the agenda materials and information in the packets, information that was presented during the work session, this hearing tonight and the Board discussion on this item. This information, analysis, findings of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are to be adopted by this Board. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. ***END EXCERPT HERE*** ATTACHMENT 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 May 9, 2019 The actual property line was a surprise to the owner, as they built the house and have lived there for 20 years. The owner and all the neighbors considered the back fence to be the property line. The sunroom will be visually appealing and will not block anyone’s view. Audience Participation: (None) Board Discussion: Boardmember LaMastra requested the measurements from the fence to the edge of the sunroom. Beals confirmed that is 15 feet. LaMastra stated this sounds nominal and inconsequential. The HOA will not make everyone redo the fence. The perception is that this meets code. This was an error made in the past, no fault of the owner. Boardmember Stockover pointed out there is a large retention pond behind this property that will never be built upon. Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve ZBA190017 for the following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the additional HOA owned detention pond immediately behind the property provides enough separation to meet a rear-yard 15’ setback making this nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the variance request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra Nays: None. The Motion was carried. • OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to Land Use Code Variance Requests Beals presented the LUC changes to the board. This would allow staff level decisions to be made prior to coming before this board. Beals presented the circumstances and thresholds of these changes, including setback encroachments, a fence height increase, allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot, and building height increases all within specific parameters. Also, once a variance is approved, there is an expiration date to receive that building permit. Currently, an extension requires them to come before the board again. Part of these changes are to allow the Director to approve this one-time extension. If the applicant takes longer than that, they will need to come before this board again with that request. This item is before the board to seek a recommendation on the code changes. Boardmember Lamastra asked if there are still notifications sent out to the surrounding property owners, even if staff are approving these decisions. Beals confirmed there will be public notice, this was brought up by a community member as well. Public notice will still be required 14 days prior to the director’s decision. Chair Shields agreed with what is addressed in these changes. Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve the draft ordinance to City Council as it pertains to variances that come before this board and variances that can be processed by the Director. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra Nays: None. The Motion was carried. • ADJOURNMENT ATTACHMENT 5 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 077, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended that City Council adopt the Land Use Code changes set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures . . . (C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type of development application should be selected and submitted. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved through the following development applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required -2- prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development plans, PUD Overlays, basic development reviews, project development plans and final plans are the four (4) five (5) types of development applications for permitted uses. Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved development application, as needed, by providing additional details (through the development application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Overall development plans, basic development reviews and project development plans may be consolidated into one (1) application for concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the provisions of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of development applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3. Section 3. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 of this Code. . . . Section 4. That Section 2.18.3(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures . . . Step 7(D)(1 and 2) : (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, after consideration of the development application, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant,and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and to the abutting property owners, and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com. . . . Section 5. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.1.1 - Applicability -3- All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the applicable standards contained in divisions 3.1 through 3.9 3.11, except that with the following exceptions: (A) sSingle-family detached dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses on platted lots that are subject only to building permit review.under article 4, as well as any (B) aAccessory buildings, structures and accessory uses associated with the such single-family dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses listed in (A) above,. Applications for the development noted in exceptions (A) and (B) above must need to comply only with: (a) the standards contained in article 4 for the zone district in which such uses are located; (b) the standards contained in division 3.8; and (c) with respect to extra occupancy rental houses, the additional standards contained in sSection 3.2.2(k)(1)(j). Existing Development. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall continue to apply to ongoing use of land in a completed developments to the extent that the provisions of this lLand uUse cCode can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having such ongoing application. Section 6. That Section 3.2.1(A) through (I) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection (A) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development (except for development on existing lots for single-family detached dwellings) within the designated "limits of development" ("LOD") and natural habitatarea buffer zones established according to Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features). (B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy cover is created, diversified and maintained shading so that all associated social and environmental benefits are maximized to the extent reasonably feasible. These benefits include reduced erosion and stormwater runoff, improved water conservation, air pollution mitigation, to reduced glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality increased aesthetics, and improved continuity within and between developments. Trees planted in appropriate spaces also, provide screening and may mitigateion of potential conflicts between activity areas and other site elements while, enhancinge outdoor spaces, all of which add to a more resilient urban forest., reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and mitigate air pollution. . . . -4- (D) Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The groves and belts may also be combined or interspersed with other landscape areas in remaining portions of the development to accommodate views and functions such as active recreation and storm drainage. . . . (2) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of- way, except as described in subparagraph (b) below, in connection with the development by one (1) or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a) through (cd) below: . . . (d) Wherever existing ash trees (Fraxinus species) are in the adjoining street right-of-way, the applicant shall coordinate and obtain an onsite analysis with the City Forester to determine replacement canopy shade trees either through shadow planting or other emerald ash borer mitigation methods. (3) Minimum Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required, and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan. Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10—19 50% 20—39 33% 40—59 25% 60 or more 15% (4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes. The Director City Forester shall provide a recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements for landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street trees. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in subparagraph (5) below): Type Minimum Size -5- Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Evergreen Tree 6.0' height balled and burlapped or equivalent Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Shrubs 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design intent or 1 gallon may be permitted if planting within the Critical Root Zone of existing trees Canopy Shade Tree as a street tree on a Residential Local Street Only 1.25" caliper container or equivalent Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the approved landscape plan are exempt from the foregoing size requirements. . . . (F) Tree Protection Preservation and Mitigation Replacement. Existing significant trees (six (6) inches and greater in diameter) within the LOD and within natural habitat area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing the applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect. Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to the following schedule and requirements and shall. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section. To the extent reasonably feasible, Rreplacement trees shall be planted either on the development site or, if not reasonably feasible, in the closest available and suitable planting site on public or private property. The closest available and suitable planting site shall be selected within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development site, subject to the following exceptions. If suitable planting sites for all of the replacementmitigation trees are not available within one-half (½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development, then the planting site shall be selected within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site. If suitable planting sites are not available for all of the mitigation trees within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site, then the City Forester shall determine the most suitable planting -6- location within the City's boundaries as close to the development site as feasible. If locations for planting replacement trees cannot be located within one-half (½) mile of the development site, the applicant may, instead of planting such replacement trees, submit a payment in lieu to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division to be used to plant replacement trees to plant replacement trees as close to the development site as possible. The payment in lieu mitigation fee per tree is determined by the City Forester and may be adjusted annually based on market rates. Payment must be submitted prior to the Development Construction Permit issuance or other required permits. (1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of contribution and value of the removed significant tree(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, significant Siberian elm, and Russian-olive located in a natural habitat buffer found to contain ecological value, as provided in paragraph 3.4.1(D)(1) of this Code, shall be mitigated in accordance with subparagraph 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this Code. The applicant shall select either the coordinate with the City Forester or a qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based upon an onsite tree assessment appraisal, including, but not limited to, shade, canopy, condition, size, aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the tree(s) to be removed and by using the species and location criteria in the most recent published appraisal guide by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Replacement trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements unless otherwise determined by the City Forester: (a) Canopy Shade Trees: 32.00" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent. (b) Ornamental Trees: 2.50" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent. (c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent. (2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be exempt from the requirements of this subsection unless they meet mitigation requirements provided in paragraph 3.4.1(E)(1) of this Code: . . . (c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches DBH and Russian-olive or ash (Fraxinus species) less than eight (8) inches DBH; (d) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) of wild or volunteer origin, such as those that have sprouted from seed along fence lines, near structures or in other unsuitable locations; (e) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm determined by the City Forester to be in poor condition. -7- . . . (G) Tree Protection Specifications. The following tree protection specifications shallould be followed to the maximum extent feasible for all projects with protected existing trees. Tree protection methods shall be delineated on the demolition plans and development plans. . . . (2) All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division standards. (3) Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected existing trees with such barriers to be of orange construction or chain link fencing a minimum of four (4) feet in height, secured with metal T-posts, no closer than six (6) feet from the trunk or one-half (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater. Concrete blankets, or equivalent padding material, wrapped around the tree trunk(s) is recommended and adequate for added protection during construction. There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the fenced tree protection zone. A tree protection plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Forester prior to any development occurring on the development site. . . . (7) The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground fixture requiring excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be accomplished by boring under the root system of protected existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24) inches. The auger distance is established from the face of the tree (outer bark) and is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as described in the chart below. Low pressure hydro excavation, air spading or hand digging are additional tools/practices that will help reduce impact to the tree(s) root system when excavating at depths of twenty-four (24) inches or less. Refer to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) diagram, Figure 2, for root protection guidelines. The CRZ shall be incorporated into and shown on development plans for all existing trees to be preserved. Tree Diameter at Breast Height (inches) Auger Distance From Face of Tree (feet) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 -8- 15-19 12 Over 19 15 Figure 2 Critical Root Zone Diagram (H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements. In approving the required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to determine the optimum placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as trees, vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following criteria: . . . (4) creating visual interest year-round; . . . (I) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement. . . . -9- (8) Restricted Species. City Forestry Division shall provide a list of specified tree species that shall not be planted within the limits of development and adjoining street right-of-way. For example, no ash trees (Fraxinus species) shall be planted due to the anticipated impacts of the emerald ash borer. (9) Prohibited species. For prohibited species reference Chapter 27, Article II, Division 1, Sec. 27-18 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. . . . Section 7. That Section 3.2.1(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic control device separations. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees. (1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 23.) Figure 23 Tree/Streetlight Separations . . . Section 8. That Section 3.2.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: -10- 3.2.4 Site Lighting . . . (D) Design Standards. The lighting plan shall meet the following design standards: . . . (5) Light sources must minimize contrast with the light produced by surrounding uses, and must produce an unobtrusive degree of brightness in both illumination levels and color rendition. Incandescent and high- pressure sodium light sources all can provide adequate illumination with low contrast and brightness and are permitted light sources. (11) All lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of no greater than three thousand (3,000) degrees Kelvin. Section 9. That Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. . . . (e) Drainage. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities required by the approved Development Plan Documents must be consistent with the Stormwater Criteria Manual as it may be modified from time to time. Such stormwater drainage facility must be verified by an authorized City inspector at the appropriate phases of construction activities as specified in the Development Certification Checklist issued by Water Utilities Engineering and available on the City of Fort Collins website. from the Department, including but not limited to the following: (1) Porous Pavers: (a) Installation must be verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain, geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and sub-base course. (b) Installation of this facility must be verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pavers and joint fill material. (2) Bioretention Cells, Rain Gardens, and/or Sand Filters: -11- (a) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain and geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and base course. (b) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pea gravel course and sand or growing media layer course. (3) Extended Detention Basins: Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the water quality control box(es). (4) Underground Treatment: Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point at which the feature is installed but not buried. In the event of non-compliance, the City shall have the option to withhold building permits and/or certificates of occupancy or use any other legal remedy that may be provided in the City Code, the Land Use Code and/or the Development Agreement, as determined appropriate to ensure that the Developer properly installs all privately owned stormwater improvements associated with the development as specified in the Development Plan Documents. In addition, a “Drainage Certification” prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Colorado must be provided. The “Certification” must confirm to the City that all stormwater drainage facilities required to serve the property have been constructed in conformance with the approved Development Plan Documents so as to protect downstream property and the quality of Stormwater runoff from the property to comply with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit. Such certification must be in the form required by the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual and Construction Standards. . . . Section 10. That Section 3.3.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.3.5 - Engineering Design Standards The project must comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services as certified by the appropriate agency or variances must be granted by such agency: • water supply -12- • sanitary sewer • mass transit • fire protection • flood hazard areas • telephone • walks/bikeways • irrigation companies • electricity • natural gas • storm drainage • cable television • streets/pedestrians • broadband/fiber optic Section 11. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features . . . (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map. (1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological characterization study of the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following: -13- . . . (e) the pattern, species and location of all non-native trees and any significant non-native trees, including Siberian elm and Russian olive trees, as described in paragraph 3.2.1(F)(1) of this Code, and non-native vegetation that contribute to the site's ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic and cooling value; . . . Section 12. That Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features . . . (E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development that is subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological character of natural habitats and features from the impacts of the ongoing activity associated with the development. (1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone table below, but the decision maker may shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance so long as the reduced buffer complies with, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards set forth below are achieved. To mitigate a reduced portion of the buffer area, the decision maker may also enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance if necessary to ensure that the buffer complies with the performance standards set forth below. The buffer zone performance standards are as follows: . . . (c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on the site. that contribute to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, habitat and cooling value. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 3.2.1(F), all trees and vegetation within the Limits of Development must be preserved or, if necessary, mitigated based on the values established by the Ecological Characterization Study or the City -14- Environmental Planner. Such mitigation, if necessary, shall include trees, shrubs, grasses, or any combination thereof, and must be planted within the buffer zone. . . . Section 13. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (3) which reads in its entirety as follows: (D) Relationship of Dwelling to Streets and Parking. . . . (3) At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the outside into each individual single family attached dwelling must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest emergency access easement or designated fire lane as measured along paved walkways. Neither an exterior nor interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement. Section 14. That Section 3.8.17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.17 Building Height . . . (2) Building Height Measured in Stories. In measuring the height of a building in stories the following measurement rules shall apply: (a) A balcony or mezzanine shall be counted as a full story when its floor area is in excess of one-third (1/3) of the total area of the nearest full floor directly below it. (b) No story of a commercial or industrial residential building shall have more than twenty-five (25) feet from floor to floor. (c) A maximum vertical height of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches shall be permitted for each residential story. This maximum vertical height shall apply only in the following zone districts: U-E; R-F; R-L; L-M-N; M-M- N; N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B; R-C; C-C-N; N-C; and H-C. . . . Section 15. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) to read as follows: . . . -15- (3) The following uses are permitted in the R-L District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board: . . . (e) Accessory / Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. . . . Section 16. That Section 4.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads in its entirety as follows: (4) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities must be located on a non-residential parcel and installation must be mitigated by use of stealth techniques such as steeples, bell towers, grain silos, or similar means of disguising the appearance of the facilities to mitigate its visual impacts. Section 17. That Section 4.7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) (D) Land Use Standards. . . . (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: . . . 2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory structure. 3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings -16- accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory structure. . . . (5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lotfor carriage houses, and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one- half (1½) stories. (F) Development Standards. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing -17- (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (feet) from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). -18- . . . Section 18. That Section 4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District . . . (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses. (2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots. (a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows: 1. On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. 2 2 4’ -19- 2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single- family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for a detached accessory structure. 3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached accessory building. 4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot area. . . . (5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than -20- three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. . . . (E) Dimensional Standards. . . . (5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. (F) Development Standards. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing. (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of -21- six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). . . . Section 19. That Section 4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) . . . (D) Land Use Standards. . . . (3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. (4) Accessory Building without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within ground floor plus that portion of floor area of any second story the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor -22- area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. . . . (E) Development Standards. (1) Building Design. . . . (e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (2) Bulk and Massing. (a) Building Height. 1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories. . . . (b) Eave Height. 1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length. 3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of -23- six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of setback from the interior side property line. 34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). . . . Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: . . . 28. Enclosed mini-storage facilities, if located at least two hundred (200) feet from North College Avenue or one hundred fifty (150) feet from South College Avenue. . . . Section 21. That the definition “Neighborhood center” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidentialuses and an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for a Low Density Mixed-Use Nneighborhood as listed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -24- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -1- ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR VARIANCES TO CERTAIN LAND USE CODE STANDARDS WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director determining certain variances to the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended that City Council adopt the Land Use Code changes set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2.10 - VARIANCES (BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS) . . . 2.10.2 Variances By the Director (A) The Director shall be authorized to grant the following types of variances, subject to the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below: -2- (1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent. (2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot. (3) In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase of up to ten (10) percent, provided the amount of increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire lot. (4) Building height increase of up to one (1) foot. (B) The Director may refer any variance described in (A) above to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and decision if the Director determines that the application under consideration raises questions as to compliance with the requirements for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood that are appropriately addressed through a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals that will allow the applicant or the public, or both, an opportunity to provide relevant information related to the application. 2.10.3 Variances By the Zoning Board of Appeals The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be authorized to grant all variances not subject to the Director’s review in Section 2.10.2(A) and those referred by the Director. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall follow the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below. 2.10.24 Variance Review Procedures . . . (F) Step 6 (Notice): For variances reviewed by the Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals Ssubsection 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that a variance reviewed by the Director shall require mailed written notice fourteen (14) days prior to the decision instead of the hearing/meeting date and for variances reviewed by the Director or the Zoning Board of Appeals, “eight hundred (800) feet” shall be changed to “one hundred fifty (150) feet,” and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for variance requests for: . . . (G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for Section 2.2.7(A), the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Code, shall review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for variance based on its compliance with all of the standards contained in Step 8. -3- Step 7(B)—(G)(1) Zoning Board of Appeals Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats, Filing with City Clerk): Applicable. Step 7(B)—(C) and (E)—(G)(1) Director Review Only (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings as Public Hearing): Not applicable. Step 7(D) Director Review Only (Decision and Findings): Applicable and in substitution thereof, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to the property owners to whom notice was originally mailed and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development review; and that: . . . (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance whichthat applies to the issuance of a Building Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such variance was granted, unless all necessary permits have been applied for obtained; provided, however, that for good cause shown, the Director Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, but in no event shall the period of time for applying for obtaining all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in length. One (1) six-month extension may be granted by the Director Zoning Board of Appeals. (L) Step 12 (Appeals): (1) Applicable and in substitution thereof, variances decided by the Director are appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any such appeal must be initiated by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within fourteen (14) days after the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing. The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (2) Applicable to variances reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. -4- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk