Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/19/2019 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN REZONING AND DEVELOAgenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 19, 2019 City Council STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Downtown Rezoning and Development Standards for the Downtown and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Transition Areas. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Part A of this item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2018-034. A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2019, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Downtown Rezoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2019, Amending the Land Use Code Relating to Development Standards for the Downtown and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Transition Areas. The purpose of this item is to consider a City-initiated request to rezone 467 acres into an expanded Downtown (D) zone district and to amend interrelated Land Use Code sections that together address design standards for Downtown and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (“NCB”) transition areas that interface between downtown and the predominantly single-family housing within the Old Town Neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Purpose and Objectives Staff has been working closely with downtown and Old Town area property owners, businesses and design professionals to develop Land Use Code amendment concepts necessary to implement the recently adopted (2017) Downtown Plan and the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The requested Land Use Code amendments were identified as high-priority, near-term action items in the two Plans. The project objective has been to set revised regulations for the downtown that reflect the latest policy direction. These new design standards provide greater predictability in the Land Use Code regulations by clarifying standards that apply to new infill and redevelopment projects, while allowing the opportunity for creative building forms and site design options. The Code changes provide form- and performance-based metrics that update and augment existing design standards. Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 2 This joint Code improvement effort also aligns with the goals and implementation efforts of the Historic Preservation Code review project that was developed on a parallel schedule and recently adopted by the City Council. The Code changes address the following main themes that emerged during the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods planning processes and that are embodied in the two Plans: Downtown Plan - Related Themes • Preserve and Enhance Downtown’s Sense of Place Residents and visitors alike cherish Downtown in part because of its historic buildings, arts and culture scene, and the Poudre River corridor with its parks, natural areas and trails. As Downtown’s activity extends beyond the historic core area, the unique buildings, culture, and resources that make Downtown special need to be recognized, protected and enhanced. Policies in this plan provide direction about desired future character as Downtown continues to evolve. • Put Pedestrians First Regardless of their mode of travel-car, bike, longboard, bus, on foot, or using a mobility device- everyone who comes Downtown is a pedestrian when they arrive. Downtown is already one of the most pedestrian-oriented places in our entire community. However, the experience of walking around Downtown warrants close, ongoing attention as change continues. More transportation options, safer crossings, more pleasant streetscapes and public spaces, and buildings designed to feel comfortable at the pedestrian scale are all emphasized throughout the plan. Old Town Neighborhoods Plan - Related Themes • Buffer and Transition Areas As Downtown and CSU continue to grow and evolve, maintaining a compatible transition between the residential character of the Old Town Neighborhoods and Downtown is important to residents. Many of the blocks in these transition areas are already zoned as part of the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district, which attempts to achieve transitional land-uses, building heights, and design between Downtown and the neighborhoods. Stakeholders indicated the types of land-uses found in the buffer zone district, such as larger residential buildings and professional offices are appropriate. However, specific redevelopment issues related to building design and activities or nuisances in rear parking areas are crucial for a smooth and functional transition to the smaller structures and homes found in the neighborhoods. I. Downtown Rezoning Request and creation of Additional Subdistricts The proposed Code amendment includes the zoning of all land within the Downtown Plan area boundary into one expanded Downtown (D) zone district that corresponds to the Downtown Plan boundary. This expanded Downtown district brings together areas currently zoned in twelve different zone districts: located within the River Redevelopment (R-D-R), Industrial (I), Community Commercial (C-C), Community Commercial North College (C-C-N), Community Commercial River (C-C-R), Limited Commercial (C-L), Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), Transition (T), General Commercial (C-G), River Conservation (R-C), Public Open Lands (P-O-L), and Estate (E) zone districts. Much of the area proposed for rezoning has evolved from past industrial outskirts of town to an extension of downtown’s mix of activity-retail/restaurant, employment, cultural and contemporary light industrial uses along with complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and urban-style housing, located along the backdrop of the Poudre River Corridor. This portion of the community has a continuum of planning and zoning history that provides a sense of context for rezoning: Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 3 1929 - The City’s first zoning district map designated land north and east of Jefferson and Maple Streets as “F” Industrial, with the exception of Buckingham Neighborhood which was zoned “C” residence. The “F” Industrial district allowed any use not in conflict with the nuisance ordinance. Certain uses, such as fuel refining, garbage dumps, and cement plants, all of which were previously located near the Poudre River, required review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. The building height limit was 75 feet. Except for lots fronting on Laurel Street, all areas within the Campus North subdistrict were zoned residential. 1964 - The “F” Industrial district was replaced by a new I Industrial district designation. Most of the area within the proposed Campus North subdistrict was up-zoned to a “D” Commercial zone district which permitted a range of retail, service and light industrial uses. 1965 - the I-G General Industrial District replaced the I district and permitted any commercial, industrial or manufacturing use, provided that certain smoke, noise, odor, and fume performance standards were met. This district was expanded east along Lincoln Avenue to include what is now Odell Brewing. A Commercial zone district was applied to properties fronting Riverside Avenue in the area now proposed as the Downtown-Entryway Corridor. 1976 - The balance of the area proposed as the Innovation subdistrict, including those properties along the north and south sides of Vine Drive, were brought into the I-G district. The area now proposed as the Campus North subdistrict was zoned General Business. The northern portion of the North Mason district was rezoned to Commercial. 1986 - Light Industrial (I-L) designation applied to properties on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of the Buckingham neighborhood. The former powerplant building and properties fronting N. College, north of the River, received a new zoning of Highway Business. The Vine Drive corridor east of N. College was up- zoned to Commercial. 1993 - Properties bounded by Riverside and Lemay, from Lincoln to Mulberry were zoned under a new River Corridor (R-C) district, and those fronting the west side of Riverside were rezoned from general industrial to a new district called Limited Commercial (C-L). 1997 - Comprehensive City-wide rezoning resulted in the creation of several new zone districts: Downtown (D), along with three Downtown subdistricts (Canyon Avenue, Civic, Old City Center); River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R); Community Commercial (C-C); Community Commercial River (C-C-R); Employment (E); River Conservation (R-C); Public Lands (P-O-L), and Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Due to the variety of design characteristics present throughout downtown, the Downtown zone district will now recognize nine distinct character subdistricts (see Figure 18 of the proposed ordinance). These subdistricts each have attributes that create unique identities in terms of building patterns, streetscapes and outdoor space configurations. Each subdistrict's desired future character is distinct, but all subdistricts are unified by the principles of urban design. These nine Subdistricts are: • Historic Core Subdistrict (same boundary/formerly named Old City Center) • Civic Subdistrict • Canyon Avenue Subdistrict • River Subdistrict (formerly River Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone district) • River Corridor Subdistrict (formerly in the P-O-L zone district) • Entryway Corridor (formerly C-L zone district) • Innovation Subdistrict (formerly a combination of I, C-C-N and C-C-R zone districts) • North Mason Subdistrict (portions formerly L-M-N zone district) • Campus North Subdistrict (formerly C-C zone district) Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 4 The last six of the subdistricts listed lie outside the boundaries of the current Downtown zone district. The goal of recognizing the character defining traits for each subdistrict is to promote and enhance them as public and private development projects continue to happen. The Code update includes language to help guide the character of these areas like the language in the current River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) Zone. Some examples of elements considered are historical context, landscape setting, contextual building form, and predominant materials. Land Use Code Division 2.9 - Amendment to the Zoning Map Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) - Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings: Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(a) - Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposal satisfies the Land Use Code requirements for rezoning. The recommended zoning and subdistrict boundaries coincide with the Downtown Plan which is an adopted element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan). Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(b) - Changed Conditions: Conditions within the requested rezone area have changed dramatically since the first Downtown Plan (1989) was adopted and subsequent comprehensive Citywide rezoning in 1997 that coincided with the adoption of the original City Plan. The Downtown Plan boundary and corresponding rezone boundary encompasses substantially more than the historic core of “Old Town", and incorporates areas planned and zoned for commercial activities, stretching from Vine Drive south to the Colorado State University campus and from Canyon Avenue eastward to Lemay Avenue. The boundary has evolved since the 1989 Downtown Plan to include additional commercial areas and correspond to non-residential zoning boundaries. Recent mixed use or non-residential development within the expanded boundary that indicate the breadth of changes include the Woodward Technology Campus, Innosphere, the Riverside Community Solar Array, the Music District, Ginger and Baker, Red Truck Brewing, and Block One, along with multiple projects under construction, e.g.- the Poudre River Kayak Park and Confluence. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At its December 20, 2018, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board adopted as part of the consent agenda a recommendation that Council approve the proposed rezoning on 7-0 vote. Rezoning Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Downtown Rezoning, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The rezoning request is less than 640 acres and, therefore, is considered quasi-judicial and all required notifications have been satisfied. Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 5 B. The rezoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4(H) in that the request is consistent with the Downtown Plan, which is an element of City Plan. C. The rezoning is warranted by the change in conditions in the expanded Downtown area that have occurred since 1989 when the first Downtown Plan was adopted. D. Multiple neighborhood and community meetings were held between July 2015 and January 2109 to discuss revisions to the Downtown zone district and the creation of character subdistricts. E. The rezoning request area is not located within the Sign District boundary adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code; therefore, no changes to the Sign District Map are required. II. Downtown Code Amendments Proposed amendments to Division 4.16 - Downtown District of the Land Use Code are based on the following general outline and are summarized below. 1. Street Frontage Types as a Defining Element 2. Development Standards -Building Design -Building Height -Mass Reduction through Building Stepbacks and similar standards -Site Design 3. Special Subdistrict Provisions 4. Permitted Uses 1. Street Frontage Types as a Defining Element Three types of street frontages (see Figure 18.1 of the proposed ordinance) have evolved in the downtown, shaping the public realm and building placement. The Downtown Plan and current Code update illuminated the need to recognize and enhance these three conditions. • Storefront - Found primarily within the Historic Core, and along Laurel Street, buildings abut a wide sidewalk with street trees in cutouts. Retail and commercial uses predominate the ground floor with a high degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants. • Mixed Use - Found adjacent the Historic Core Subdistrict on streets such as Mason and Remington, this street frontage type is a hybrid and transition between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Buildings are set a little farther back from the street than along Storefront streets, often with small landscape beds separating the building from the sidewalk. There is significantly less ground floor retail space. • Green Edge - Found in the subdistricts away from the Historic Core, this frontage type is best recognized for more generous landscaped areas between the street curb and the building. This includes both parkways between the curb and sidewalk, and front yards. Ground floor uses comprise mostly residential and office, with a scattering of other commercial uses, often in much larger buildings than are found in the Historic Core Subdistrict. Note that most of downtown’s streets have multiple frontage types along their length. Mountain Avenue, for example is characterized by a Storefront condition from Mason Street to Jefferson Street, but quickly changes to a Green Edge Street west of Mason Street. Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 6 2. Development Standards Building Design The proposed building design standards are intended to provide basic requirements that enhance the pedestrian experience, but not be overly prescriptive with respect to building style. The two most significant of these standards relate to building materials and the degree of transparency at the ground level. Under this provision, lower building facades must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials. Ground floor building transparency through windows, storefront display windows, glass doors, transoms and other glazing, is required up to 60% on the highest pedestrian volume streets. Building Heights The downtown skyline is expected to continue to evolve with a limited number of additional buildings that will rise above the tree canopy, in the 7-12 story range, mainly to the west and south of the Historic Core. Current standards provide for a height range from 2.5 stories to 12 stories. Maximum building heights are on a block- by-block basis, with the tallest portion of a building limited to these maximum heights. Zoning standards set maximum allowable heights on a given site, but other factors associated with other Code requirements and development project needs often ultimately determine the height of a specific building. For example, during the review process, a lower limit can result from design standards for compatibility or parking needs. The approach with the proposed height revisions shifts to a more clearly stated regulatory framework to facilitate more efficient review of proposed development projects. Ultimately, these revised regulations are intended to provide more predictable outcomes through the development review process Proposed building height allowances retain virtually all of downtown’s overall height capacity under current zoning, with two exceptions. First, the westernmost gateway into the downtown, along West Mulberry Street near Sherwood Street, is proposed for a height reduction from 9 stories to 6 stories, to make the height transition in this area consistent with nearby blocks. Second, two parcels making up the ‘Oxbow Site’, located north of Buckingham Park, and west of 1st Street, have a capacity of up to four stories in height (previously limited to three stories) provided that the fourth story may not occur less than 150 feet from Low Density Residential (R-L) or Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zoned properties. Mass Reduction through Building “Stepbacks” and other measures Coupled with the height limits are mass mitigation requirements that help to maintain downtown’s pedestrian scale. The primary mass mitigation technique is the stepping-back of upper building stories. Under the revised standards, buildings within areas that have a height limit of four or more stories must step back the upper stories an average of at least 10 feet along all street frontages and such step-back can happen at the second through the fifth stories. If a building is directly across the street from a height allowance of three stories, the stepback must occur at the second or third story. Also, in all cases where there is a dissimilar height allowance between block faces, buildings must provide a contextual stepback (See Figure 18.9 of the proposed ordinance). Buildings greater than six stories will be now subject to reduced building mass in the upper building stories making for more slender building forms that provide for greater sunlight access to streets. Site Design The principal site design requirements are Building Placement Standards that are determined by street frontage type. Standards include minimum building setbacks from property lines, but also ‘build-to’ requirements for street fronting facades, that describe a building envelope zone relative to the back of the curb. Specific setback distances help with building mass mitigation and strengthen the pedestrian experience appropriate for the specific area of Downtown. Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 7 3. Special Subdistrict Provisions Design aspects of the Canyon Avenue, Civic, Innovation and River subdistricts are addressed in design standards for development reflecting unique attributes of each subdistrict’s identity and character. 4. Permitted Uses The new Downtown zone includes a table listing permitted uses within each character subdistrict. The applicable review process, i.e.- Basic Development Review, Minor Amendment, Type 1 (Administrative) or Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board), is denoted for each use. Uses not listed in this section are prohibited. III. Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Zone Land Use Code Amendments The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Zone provides a transition between the intensity of downtown and the single-family character of the Old Town Neighborhoods. The NCB Zone allows for office and multi- family buildings up to three stories. Through the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan process, the need to provide greater clarity for how larger new buildings are to develop was explored. This Code update slightly adjusts regulations to strengthen block-face contextual response of new construction and additions, and to limit impacts on neighbors such as shading. Improving building roof form requirements and massing to protect solar access are the primary methods to aid in compatible new development. The main Land Use Code adjustments within the N-C-B district are: 1. Building Shading Step-back Requirements. In order to reduce shading impacts to adjacent south facing roof and wall area, building upper stories must be either stepped back or provide a pitched roof. 2. Building Design Standards for Multi-family and non-residential buildings. Under these new provisions, new development must incorporate at least three architectural features that will ensure design compatibility within the block face. 3. Removal of 10,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for “carriage houses” in rear yards. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The proposed changes to the Land Use Code do not affect City financial resources in any quantifiable way. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 14, 2018, the Landmark Preservation Commission forwarded a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Dorn moved the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval to City Council of the Downtown Code and NCB Transition Code changes as presented noting its concern, however, that the height change in the Oxbow district from three to four stories would radically change the context due to the height of proposed new buildings and potential traffic patterns affecting the potential historic character of the Buckingham neighborhood, which should be recognized as an essential part of the sugar beet heritage and area history relating to Germans from Russia. The Commission also acknowledges the maximum footprint for buildings over six stories is still under review and may be revised. Mr. Hogestad seconded. The motion passed 5-1, Bello dissenting. On November 15, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation to City Council. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the approval of the Downtown and Transition Area LUC Updates. The recommendation is based on agenda materials, the information that was presented during work session, this hearing and the Board discussion of Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 8 this item. Member Hansen seconded. Chair Schneider commended the staff for their outreach and getting this completed. This is a useful tool for the Board. Vote: 6-0. On December 20, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Board at its regular meeting adopted as part of the consent agenda a recommendation that Council approve the proposed rezoning on 7-0 vote. PUBLIC OUTREACH Major policy direction was developed during the Downtown Plan and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan public engagement processes. Engagement activities for these two Plans were varied, from traditional open houses and workshops, listening sessions and surveys, to more interactive events like subdistrict walking and bike tours, online wiki-mapping, and events at festivals. In total, the Downtown Plan outreach included 38 workshops, open houses, or general events, 36 working group meetings, 2 working group roundtables, 57 presentations to 17 City Boards and Commissions, numerous coffee discussion get-togethers, and thousands of individual interactions, survey responses, and comments. A key component of Plan engagement included an email newsletter with over 900 subscribers. For these Land Use Code updates, staff held three open house events, multiple one-on-one and small group meetings with property owners and designers, and presented draft code concepts to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), DBA, Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, members of the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan efforts, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) and several advisory boards and commissions. The first open house was held on February 28, 2018, at The Elizabeth Hotel, and was well-attended by members of the design and development community. A second open house was an all-day event on April 18th. The last open house was held on July 25th. Over the last six months, staff has continued to meet with area property owners, the DDA, DBA and LPC to understand any issues or concerns with the proposed regulations. All these events and meetings have helped to inform staff on the level of support for the proposed code updates. The City Council held two work sessions that provided guidance on the prospective Code changes. Direction provided at the December 15, 2017, Work Session focused on ways to increase clarity in the regulations, make them more predictable, while not reducing the degree of flexibility afforded to developers and designers. The second work session, held on April 24, 2018, centered primarily on proposed changes to the height limits. Considerations from Council at the Work Session about height included: • Careful consideration is necessary for transitions to the Buckingham neighborhood. Council directed staff to engage the neighborhood in a dialogue about the proposed height amendment on the abutting Oxbow Site to the west. • Taller buildings are appropriate in the interior of Downtown, but Downtown needs to transition to the surrounding neighborhoods. • Heights can be expressed in number of stories for public outreach, but also should be expressed in feet in the Code. • Need to consider maximum building height as it relates to the Poudre River. Discussion on the Oxbow Site height limit: Perspectives regarding height limitations on the Oxbow property located west of the Buckingham neighborhood have been decidedly split. The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed a proposal to increase the maximum height by one story on the Oxbow Site and unanimously recommended its approval. However, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) on a vote of 5-1 (Dunn absent, Bello dissenting), recommended that height limits on the Oxbow site remain at three stories rather than increasing to four. The LPC expressed concern was their perceived effect the additional height would have on the character of the abutting Buckingham Neighborhood. Staff recently held a workshop with Buckingham Neighborhood residents and other interested parties and verified that some residents have concerns about revising the height standard. While it wasn’t unanimous, some Buckingham residents were concerned that four story buildings abutting to the west could be Agenda Item 22 Item # 22 Page 9 incompatible with and detracting from the long-established character of the neighborhood if they weren’t well- designed for the context. They expressed concern that compatibility might be difficult to achieve with a four- story building except through a development review process where they did not sense they would have much control over the outcome. In response to neighborhood concerns, the draft Land Use Code provisions were revised to permit four-story buildings provided that the fourth story may not be constructed less than 150 feet from Low Density Residential (R-L) and Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zoned properties. Staff is confident that this required height setback from the residential area, coupled with mandatory contextual stepbacks, will preserve neighborhood character. ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (PDF) 2. Work Session Summary, April 24, 2018 (PDF) 3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 15, 2018 (PDF) 4. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, November 14, 2018 (PDF) 5. Downtown Development Authority letter, February 12, 2019 (PDF) 6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6134 - fax 1 Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: December 15, 2017 TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Work Session Summary – December 12, 2017 re: Compatibility and Character Code Updates Attendees: Cameron Gloss and Karen McWilliams presented an update on on-going efforts to development new compatibility and character Land Use Code standards and responded to questions from Council. All City Council members were present. Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council: Is it appropriate to create an expanded Downtown zone district? Is Council comfortable with staff’s intention to integrate compatibility requirements in the Land Use Code to improve overall clarity and predictability? Discussion Summary • The Code changes should focus on clarity, predictability, and simplification • More specificity is requested with the revised standards with respect to terminology: o “Sensitivity to development” is ambiguous. o Terms other than “compatible” should be considered (no alternatives were suggested) • Predictability is good, but we also want creativity in design. The standards need to find the right balance between the two. • Need to allow the funky old with the new--prescription vs allowance for designs to have some unusual elements. • The ability to have greater predictability for developers and the community is a good goal. • More visual graphical representations are helpful in explaining the design concepts. December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 2 Compatibility and Character Code updates • Ginger and Baker was mentioned as a great combination of preserving the old and integrating a complementary addition. • The quality of staff processes shows in the projects that are being built. • We need to be careful not to overprocess. Sometimes less is more when it comes to process. • The impact of the design standards on construction costs and affordable housing needs to be considered. Housing should be affordable to different income levels with the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods. • Expectation that there is design sensitivity at the interface between neighborhoods and surrounding districts. • Need specific metrics for the ramp-down of buildings; this transition should happen within the Downtown District and not within the surrounding neighborhoods. • Commercial pressures from Downtown are such that we need to protect residential areas. • Building Height standards should consider the following: o Number of stories is not a very useful metric. Use feet rather than stories. o Lower building heights are better next to neighborhood districts. o Reference the height of individual buildings, but not the overall character of zones. o May want to consider how other communities have created system of an air rights market, where if you want to construct a building of a certain height, you must buy air space. o Varied building heights adds positively to Downtown; look at higher densities where they make sense (along the MAX corridor was mentioned). o Clustering tall buildings Downtown makes sense. o View corridor protection is important. o Pedestrian experience is paramount; however, property owners and building tenants should be important considerations, as well. • Would be interesting to explore overall character and the kinds of tools that can be placed to make sure that the overall Downtown zone doesn’t get changed based on specific projects. • Historic Preservation compatibility standards should consider the following: o The current adjacency standard makes compatibility hard to judge; prescribing a radius of historical influence would be helpful. o Site line metrics to historic resources should be more specific. o Defining relevant historic resources that would be impacted, rather than those that fall within a specific area, was suggested. o Suggested that staff be more proactive about identifying landmarks versus evaluating every building over 50 years old. • Council is supportive of the integration of the historic preservation standards with other development standards found in the Code. • Staff shared the on-going partnership with CSU to create a virtual reality model for Downtown which will become a future tool for evaluating proposed changes. December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 3 Compatibility and Character Code updates Follow-up Items: Council requested that staff: • Include the Affordable Housing Board and other relevant boards and interest ground in development of the standards. • Need to carefully craft citizen engagement so we ensure feedback that clearly defines what the community desires. • Need to spend more time educating the community on the Code objectives and the options being pursued. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2018 TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager RE: Work Session Summary – April 24, 2018 re: Compatibility and Character Code Updates Attendees: Cameron Gloss and Tom Leeson presented an update on on-going efforts to develop new compatibility and character Land Use Code standards for the Downtown and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Zones and responded to questions from Council. All City Council members were present. Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council: Does Council agree with the proposed regulatory concepts? Are there specific metrics that should be refined? Discussion Summary • General consensus that the current regulatory direction is appropriate. • Overall, the amended height map reflects a balance of the community’s vision for how Downtown will develop. It feels more coherent. o Careful consideration is necessary for transitions to the Buckingham neighborhood. A three-story height limit is probably more appropriate on the immediate blocks. Further outreach with the neighborhood is necessary. o Taller buildings are appropriate in the interior of Downtown, but Downtown needs to transition to the surrounding neighborhoods. o The DDA perspective regarding the overall Height Map needs to be understood and considered, especially along Mulberry Street. o The Height Map should be a gradient of a single color so it is easier to see the distribution of height intensity. o Heights can be expressed in number of stories for public outreach, but also should be expressed in feet in the Code. ATTACHMENT 2 April 24, 2018 Council Work Session Summary Page 2 Compatibility and Character Code updates o Need to consider maximum building height as it relates to the Poudre River. • Further work is necessary to model and visualize these standards. Street level 3D model views will help show what building forms are possible under the new Code. o Preserving viewsheds is important. 3D modeling can help analyze this. • Financial, traffic, and density analysis is necessary. o What are the financial implications of modifying the Height Map? o How will a change in overall density impact traffic? o Is there a correlation between density and affordability? • Building articulation/design standards will help with high quality buildings and the pedestrian experience. o Stepback and wall plane change metrics need to be analyzed to ensure they are achieving the intent. • What constitutes as “compatible” should be clearly understood. • Parkways should be designed to block cars from driving into the pedestrian realm. Follow-up Items: Council requested that staff: • Reach out to the Buckingham neighborhood about surrounding height limits. • Continue to refine standards and height allowances. • Generate visualizations showing what is allowed under the new Code • Continue discussions with the DDA on the code metrics and allowable height. • Study the financial and density implications of the new Code. Planning & Zoning Board November 15, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Rory Heath, City Park Dr.; His strong ask is that public safety, different traffic patterns and integration of those traffic patterns, the Mason corridor and the awkward railroad corridor along that area are taken into account. He reiterated the emphasis for public good versus development. Staff Response Director Birks deferred to Caitlin Quander, Council to the Urban Renewal Authority, to respond to the questions asked by the citizens. Ms. Quander responded to Mr. Sutherlands questions. First being that the Urban Renewal Authority is the entity that advances the process. Chair Schneider sought clarification on who the applicant was, Ms. Quander responded that the URA is a sperate entity from the City which is why there is separate legal counsel. As for the question regarding sales tax; within the statutory role, the Board is looking at if this proposed plan is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan and that City sales tax is in conversation with the City and the URA at the appropriate time when those allocation agreements come forward before the City Council. Chair Schneider asked if the sales tax dollars are enforceable based on the complaint filed by Mr. Sutherland. Ms. Quander deferred to City Attorney Yatabe. Mr. Yatabe responded that he did not have any information as he has not been involved with the issue. Member Pardee wanted to know about the legal structure of the URA Board. Ms. Quander replied that it is a quasi- governmental entity much like a metropolitan district or a business improvement district, yet slightly different as it is made up of City Council along with appointees and has different statutory authority. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen commented that this is a complicated plan and that he is glad the Board does not have to be involved in the nuts and bolts other than compliance with the City Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels can use some help and as for the role of the Board, this is an appropriate check box for approval. Attorney Yatabe; the Board has been provided with a written resolution where the stature requires that in reviewing conformance with he Comprehensive Plan and the City Plan that the findings that you make the recommendation regarding that issue be put down in writing so that can be communicated to City Council, who will be the ultimate decision maker. The request is for the Board to adopt the Resolution and direct the Chair to sign the Resolution. Chair Schneider; The Board can state the resolution, we do not have to read the whole resolution? Attorney Yatabe, responded that was correct. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Resolution 012018, a resolution of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board finding that the Drake and College Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with the City Plan and the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan. Member Carpenter seconded. Member Rollins commented that it is not only in compliance, but it is supportive of the plans and is happy to support. Member Whitley supports this item. Chair Schneider; based on the Board’s role and what can be done, this does comply with City Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and helps improve the area. Vote: 7:0. 5. Downtown and Transition Area - LUC Updates Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails for this item, but that there were two (2) updated attachments: Division 4.9 NCB and Division 4.16 Downtown District and that Member Rollins recused herself from this item. Staff Presentation Comprehensive Planning Manager Gloss and Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this plan. ATTACHMENT 3 Planning & Zoning Board November 15, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs requested that Planning Manager Gloss pull up the shading stepback. Member Hobbs wanted to know if this illustration is what the new requirement is, as it looks to be more of a setback than required. Planner Wray responded that the slide depicts close representation of the standard but is not exact. Member Carpenter questioned the preservation code and the stepbacks. Planning Manager Gloss responded that is does reflect what is existing and that it is contextual. The Preservation Standards require a match stepbacks when you are adjacent in historic structure. These standards are delayed and will be brought forward at a later date. The structure must be eligible for historic designation. Member Hansen wanted to know if the stepback should match the height across the street or step up one story. Planning Manager Gloss and the planning team considered this and decided that it would be cleaner and more straightforward to match what is the maximum. It was discussed that requirements are in both feet and stories. Member Hobbs questioned if the standards are held firm if the street or block face is the edge of the NCB and across the street is one of the residential. Planning Manager Gloss stated yes. Member Hansen likes that ambiguity in the code language will be eliminated. This will help developers, planners and designers interact with staff more predictably. He feels the section on material standards may continue to bring dissimilar opinions, but not any worse. Thanked for the hard work. Member Pardee commended staff. Member Whitley also commended staff for their clarity. Member Carpenter commended the staff for their efforts. Member Hobbs has felt the need for more codified transitions to the downtown area and he feels this goes along way in doing that and defining for people that may move into the area as a commercial property owner or as a resident. To have available for them what can happen around them or across the street. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the approval of the Downtown and Transition Area LUC Updates. The recommendation is based on agenda materials, the information that was presented during work session, this hearing and the Board discussion of this item. Member Hansen seconded. Chair Schneider commended the staff for their outreach and getting this completed. This is a useful tool for the Board. Vote: 6:0. 6. Historic Preservation Code Updates – Pulled from agenda Project Description: This is a request for Planning & Zoning Board consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources). These codes direct the review and approval processes for developments affecting historic resources. Recommendation: Approval City of Fort Collins Page 2 November 14, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 19, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the September 19, 2018 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Dorn seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • PULLED FROM CONSENT 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray requested a change on the last page of the minutes, changing architectural to archeological. Ms. Schiager confirmed the change would be made prior to publication of the minutes. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the October 17, 2018 regular meeting with the specified change. Mr. Bello seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. DOWNTOWN AND TRANSITION AREAS - LAND USE CODE CHANGES DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. STAFF: Cameron Mr. Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Staff Report Mr. Gloss presented the proposed Downtown Code revisions. He discussed the unique character of Downtown which is based on the pedestrian experience and noted the proposed Code changes are not meant to be a style manual but rather to provide a framework for urban design. The goal of the changes is to provide additional clarity in regulations. The revisions would also expand the Downtown district. Mr. Gloss discussed the set backs and build-to zones for the proposed revisions and noted language has been added to require installation to manufacturer standards. He stated staff has found one item to be incomplete related to the maximum building footprint above the 6th story and requested the Commission consider the changes except that specific change. Mr. Wray presented the proposed Code revisions to the related to the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB). He stated these changes act as implementation of the approved Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The three key NCB Code changes are to remove the minimum lot area requirement, to provide new choices for multi-family, non-residential design standards and options, and to include a building shading step back for larger buildings. Mr. Wray discussed the key parameters in terms of design standard changes. He stated staff is requesting a recommendation from the Commission for approval of the proposed Code changes. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 2018 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Fort Collins Page 3 November 14, 2018 Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions Ms. Simpson asked whether Willow Street should be a storefront rather than mixed use. Mr. Gloss replied it is somewhere in between, but it makes more sense as mixed use due to the rights-of-way distances. He stated he would look again at the curb line. Ms. Simpson asked how 'parkway' is defined. Mr. Gloss replied a parkway could be concrete with trees in grates and stated the distance from the back of the curb to the building will be driving the dimension more than anything. Mr. Murray asked about the image of the River District. Mr. Gloss replied it has a more industrial character, but dimensions and setbacks match a more mixed-use street. Mr. Murray asked about building heights given historic structures. Mr. Gloss replied heights were not created based on historic structures; that will be handled through the preservation Code. Mr. Hogestad asked about the zoning of the Oxbow area. Mr. Gloss replied it is CCR zoning which allows three stories. He noted the riparian forest is protected by a buffer zone. Mr. Murray asked how much of the Oxbow area is developable. Mr. Gloss replied it is a heavily constrained property given the river step back, floodplain, riparian forest, and the green street build-to line requirement. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about heavy commercial traffic on 1st Street. Mr. Gloss replied any proposed development would be evaluated and mitigation measures could be required. He clarified the Buckingham area could potentially be surrounded by four-story structures. Mr. Hogestad asked if the neighborhood has had an opportunity to participate in this process. Mr. Gloss replied workshops have been ongoing for a year and a half, and some from this neighborhood had participated; however, individuals from the Buckingham neighborhood have not been specifically targeted for feedback. Mr. Hogestad asked if there has been a survey of the Buckingham area. Ms. McWilliams replied there have been historic surveys of the area, most recently from 2002-2004. She stated that survey revealed a portion of the neighborhood could potentially be considered an historic district; however, given changes that have occurred, she is unsure the neighborhood continues to meet those standards. She stated a new survey is not scheduled at this time. Mr. Murray asked if Buckingham residents would have the opportunity to object should these changes be approved. Mr. Gloss replied a citizen can initiate a Code change; however, those are not common. Mr. Murray asked if upper story and contextual step back definitions are clearly defined. Mr. Gloss replied clarity is paramount and staff has worked with legal counsel to perfect the wording. Mr. Bello asked about the purpose of the section Mr. Gloss mentioned staff would like to further research. Mr. Gloss replied the intent is to allow air, light, and views to penetrate through buildings and taller, slender tower structures would better meet those goals. He stated staff has yet to determine how many towers should be allowed on a block and what appropriate separation requirements would be. Ms. Wallace commended the work on building base materials. She asked why staff opted to exclude copper. Mr. Gloss replied it is part of the architectural metal category and the DDA has approved the materials list. Ms. Dorn asked about removing the minimum lot area requirement in relation to the accessory dwelling unit provisions. Mr. Wray replied the existing 5,000 square foot lot requirement is proposed to be removed. Ms. Dorn asked if any incentives have been considered for people to keep and maintain a potentially historic building on a lot. Mr. Wray replied Ms. McWilliams could speak to the existing Code provisions for encouraging preservation. He stated the proposed changes allow for higher density with a transition zone. Mr. Murray asked about off-street parking requirements. Mr. Wray replied the proposed changes do not relate to existing parking requirements which discourage parking between sidewalks and buildings. City of Fort Collins Page 4 November 14, 2018 Ms. Simpson asked about front entry placement. Mr. Wray replied that is an existing standard that recognizes the contextual character of Downtown neighborhoods. Ms. Dorn asked if someone would be able to demolish existing buildings, build a new building, and add an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Wray replied that would depend on the type of building being considered. Mr. Murray asked how the proposed changes relate to solar access. Mr. Wray replied there are proposed changes for larger buildings. Ms. Wallace asked why the wording has changed from solar access to shading. Mr. Wray replied that change resulted from a Planning and Zoning Board discussion and addressed the intent to reduce shading to a certain degree. Commission Discussion Ms. Simpson requested Commission member feedback on the four-story allowance in the Oxbow area. Mr. Bello stated new development will need to go up and it provides a transition between Buckingham and other existing development. Mr. Hogestad stated he is troubled by the Buckingham area being surrounded by four-story buildings and does note believe it is appropriate to have that height on four sides of the neighborhood. Ms. Dorn asked if the proposed heights around the Buckingham neighborhood adversely affect a potential historic district. Mr. Hogestad replied it changes the context and decreases livability. Ms. Dorn suggested the Commission could make a statement that the height allowances could impact a potential historic district. Mr. Bello stated height and density can allow for a greater degree of affordability. Ms. Simpson requested a brief synopsis on Buckingham's history. Ms. McWilliams replied the neighborhood was established around 1904 as housing for sugar beet workers, primarily Germans from Russia. The area was isolated and faced discrimination for a fair amount of its history. Committee members discussed the riparian forest and Oxbow area. Mr. Gloss stated the environmental planning staff would do what it could to maintain as much of the forest as possible if a development application were submitted. Ms. Simpson asked how proposed upper story setbacks would be applied to adjacent buildings if the Oxbow site were to be developed. Mr. Gloss replied the fourth story would need to be stepped back at a minimum average of 10 feet along the street frontage. Additionally, a contextual step back would be required on the Buckingham neighborhood side. Mr. Bello stated he is struggling with how the four-story zones impact the neighborhood as setbacks keep the neighborhood from being crowded. Ms. Simpson asked if there is anything preventing O'Dell or New Belgium from building four stories in their parking lots. Mr. Gloss said there was not. Ms. Dorn suggested the Commission should support the Downtown Code changes but should make its concerns known, particularly around the height allowances near the Oxbow site as they may adversely affect a potential historic district. Mr. Hogestad agreed and stated the buildout of the properties to the north and east will affect the neighborhood as well. Ms. Wallace stated the addition of a four-story area would impact the neighborhood but would not necessarily impact the formation of a historic district. Ms. Dorn discussed the importance of a thoughtful transition from a potential historic district to new development. Mr. Gloss stated there has been resistance among property owners in the area to reduce the proposed heights. City of Fort Collins Page 5 November 14, 2018 Commission Deliberation Ms. Dorn moved the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval to City Council of the Downtown Code and NCB Transition Code changes as presented noting its concern, however, that the height change in the Oxbow district from three to four stories would radically change the context due to the height of proposed new buildings and potential traffic patterns affecting the potential historic character of the Buckingham neighborhood, which should be recognized as an essential part of the sugar beet heritage and area history relating to Germans from Russia. The Commission also acknowledges the maximum footprint for buildings over six stories is still under review and may be revised. Mr. Hogestad seconded. The motion passed 5-1, Bello dissenting. 4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODES AND PROCESS REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Planning & Zoning Board consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources). These Codes direct the review and approval processes for developments affecting historic resources. STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She discussed the history of the Code changes and noted the area of adjacency has been identified as 200 feet, which provides a tremendous amount of predictability. All historic buildings within the buffer are examined for eligibility or are already designated. Ms. McWilliams stated the new language allows greater flexibility for properties that are further away from historic resources. Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked about non-binding decisions. Ms. McWilliams replied a non-binding decision involves an incomplete property survey or lack of permission from the owner to complete a survey; therefore, any decision made is not binding on future development proposals. She noted a survey can be completed from rights-of-way; however, it may not generate enough information to make a decision. Ms. Dorn asked about the statement related to the director determining eligibility. Ms. McWilliams replied there are many situations wherein there is no specific need for an eligibility determination. She noted the director referenced is Tom Leeson, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Ms. Dorn asked if there will be changes to the existing third-party experts being used by the City. Ms. McWilliams replied there will always be changes to that list as the experts must meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. Ms. Dorn expressed concern the Commission does not always agree with the determinations of the experts. Ms. McWilliams replied it is important to have an independent recommendation; however, the Commission can disagree. Ms. McWilliams stated implementing the proposed Codes will allow decisions of eligibility to be made based on the best possible information fully documented through surveys. She noted a survey was not conducted for the Spradley Barr property. Ms. McWilliams clarified the Land Use Code changes will go before Council on December 6th and Municipal Code changes will go before Council in February. Ms. Dorn noted both Codes apply at times. Ms. McWilliams replied staff has ensured the Codes can stand alone and integrate when the Chapter 14 Municipal Code changes are adopted. Mr. Hogestad requested examples of how the proposed Codes would apply to projects such as Landmark Apartments at Prospect and Shields. Ms. McWilliams replied the project would need to meet requirements for abutting buildings. ATTACHMENT 5 Downtown Rezone and Downtown/Transitions Code 1 Cameron Gloss & Pete Wray March 19, 2019 ATTACHMENT 6 Expanded Downtown Zone 2 Expanded Downtown Zone Downtown Subdistricts 3 Downtown Subdistricts 4 Street Frontage Types 5 Street Frontage Types 6 Frontage Type Requirements 7 Build-To Range 8 Window Transparency 9 Storefront Green Edge Building Base Materials 10 “Lower Story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal or similar modular materials) installed to industry standards” 11 Current Height Limits 12 Proposed Height Limits -3 -3 +1 13 Mulberry/Canyon Site – 9 Stories 14 Mulberry/Canyon Site – 6 Stories 15 Oxbow Site Building Form 16 Stepbacks 17 • 10 foot building stepback average along street frontages. • Stepack may be continuous or may vary up to 20 feet Contextual Stepbacks 18 To provide an appropriate scale transition between opposing block faces with dissimilar height allowances, buildings shall provide a contextual height stepback. Upper floors shall be set back a minimum of three feet at the equivalent height limit on the opposing block face. Old Town Neighborhoods Plan – NCB Transition Standards 20 OTNP Framework Map Areas NCB Transition Areas 21 OTNP Policy Direction Neighborhood Character & Compatibility Land Use & Transition Areas NCC-1: Preserve character of the neighborhoods NCC-2: Protect historic resources within the neighborhoods NCC-3: Support compatible building design for new construction and remodels LUT-2: Improve transitions between neighborhoods/ Downtown/CSU 22 Proposed NCB Standards § Remove minimum lot area requirement § New multi-family/non-residential design standards § Building Shading Stepback for larger buildings 23 NCB – Allowable Floor Area Land Use Standards: § Replace Minimum Lot Area with Allowable Floor Area calculation § Provides more flexibility for considering new carriage house on rear portion of lot § Allows carriage houses behind street- facing principal building on lots less than 10,000 SF in area Public Street Alley 9,500 SF Lot Principal Bldg. New Carriage House 24 NCB – Minimum Lot Size 25 Multi-family/Non-residential Standards 26 Building Shading Stepback 27 Building Shading Step-back Example 28 Downtown and Transitions Code Cameron Gloss & Pete Wray February 19, 2019 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE DOWNTOWN REZONING WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”) establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended that the highlighted areas shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, that are not currently zoned as Downtown (D) zone district be rezoned to Downtown (D) zone district; and WHEREAS, at its December 20, 2018, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board adopted as part of the consent agenda a recommendation that Council approve the proposed rezoning on 7-0 vote; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code, the City Council has considered the rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance and has determined that said property should be rezoned as hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by changing the zoning classifications of the highlighted areas shown on Exhibit “A” that are not currently zoned as Downtown (D) zone district be rezoned to Downtown (D) zone district. Section 3. That the area to be rezoned is outside of the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(M)of the Land Use Code. Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of March, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of April, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of April, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk I I POL NCM NCM CSU E CCN CCR LMN CG CS CC I I E NCB E NCL NCL CL RDR UE NCM RC LMN NCB MMN RL RC NC POL MMN CCR RL LMN CCR RL POL T RL LMN CCR NCB LMN RDR T E NCB NCB UE CCR T RL NCB RL POL LMN NCB RC CG CANYON D AVENUE -1- ORDINANCE NO. 058, 2019 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED DOWNTOWN AND OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLANS 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, in 2017, City Council adopted the Downtown Plan, Resolution 2017-033, and the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan, Resolution 2017-022; and WHEREAS, the proposed Land Use Code changes to the Downtown and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Districts, and the proposed repeal of the River Downtown Redevelopment District, set forth below are being made to implement policies contained in the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods Plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board at its November 15, 2018, regular meeting unanimously recommended that City Council approve the proposed Land Use Code changes set forth below; 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 4.9(B)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) Residential Uses: . . . Section 3. That Section 4.9(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land Use Standards. -2- (1) DensityAllowable Floor Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating densityallowable floor area, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). . . . (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. 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. All accessory buildings with habitable space shall comply with the requirements contained in Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code or the requirements of the applicable non-City provider of water or sewer service. . . . Section 4. That Section 4.9(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Development Standards. (1) Single-Family Dwellings. (1)(a) Building Design. -3- (a)1. All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6) feet in length shall be constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape. (b)2. The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall of the building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall include an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico. (c)3. Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a front yard setback that is at least ten (10) feet greater than the front setback of the principal building that is located on the front portion of the lot. (d)4. A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls of a new or existing building. (e)5. 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 for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one- half (1½) stories. (f)6. In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of such new dwelling shall face the street. (g)7. The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck. (2)(b) Bulk and Massing. (a)1. Building Height. 1.a. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1½) stories. 2.b. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. -4- 3.c. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (b)2. Eave Height. 1.a. 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. 2.b. 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. 3.c. 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). (See illustration contained in Division 4.7Figure 17.8 below). Figure 17.8 Building Roofline and Eave Heights -5- (2) Multi-Family Dwellings, Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Buildings. Multi-family and mixed-use dwellings and non-residential buildings shall comply with the standards set forth in Figure 17.9. Figure 17.9 Multi-Family, Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Design Standards -6- Figure 17.10 Building Shading Stepback Standard (3) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings. (a) Carriage Houses. 1. Subject to the requirements set forth in in Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code or the requirements of the applicable non- City provider of water or sewer service, wWater and sewer lines may be extended from the principal building on the lot to the carriage house. . . . Section 5. That Section 4.16 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Division 4.16 - Downtown District (D) (A) Purpose. The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, employment and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing, located along the backdrop of the Poudre River Corridor. It -7- is divided into nine (9) subdistricts as depicted on Figure 18. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for high quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian-oriented character. Figure 18 Downtown District Subdistricts (B) Street Frontage Types Three types of street frontages have evolved in the Downtown District shaping public space and building placement. Applicable street frontage types are depicted on Figure 18.1. - Storefront – Found primarily within the Historic Core, and along Laurel Street, buildings abut a wide sidewalk. Retail and commercial uses predominate the ground floor with a high degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants. - Mixed Use – Found adjacent the Historic Core Subdistrict on streets such as Mason, this street character is a hybrid and transition between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Buildings are set a little farther back from the -8- street than along Storefront streets, often with small landscape beds separating the building from the sidewalk. There is significantly less ground floor retail space, but buildings still address the sidewalk in a similar way. - Green Edge – Found primarily in the subdistricts away from the Historic Core, this frontage type is best recognized for generous parkway widths and landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and the building. Ground floor uses comprise mostly residential and office, with a scattering of other commercial uses, often in much larger buildings than are found in the Historic Core Subdistrict. Figure 18.1 Downtown District Street Frontage Types -9- (1) Street Frontage and Building Placement Requirements. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: Figure 18.2 Building Design based on Street Frontage -10- Figure 18.3 Street Frontage Build-To Range -11- Figure 18.4 Building Base Materials Figure 18.5 Ground Floor Transparency Calculation -12- (C) Building Heights and Mass Reduction. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: Figure 18.6 Building Mass Reduction and Articulation -13- (1) Building Height Limits. The maximum height of buildings within the Downtown District shall be as shown on the Building Heights Map See Figure 18.7. Figure 18.7 Building Heights Map -14- (2) Measurement of Height Limits. The maximum height limits are intended to convey a scale of building rather than an exact point or line. In the case of sloped roofs, building height shall be measured to the mean height between the eave and ridge. The maximum height limits are not intended to hinder architectural roof features such as sloped roofs with dormers, penthouses, chimneys, towers, shaped cornices or parapets, or other design features that exceed the numerical limits but do not substantially increase bulk and mass. Lofts or penthouses projecting above the limits shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the floor area of the floor below and shall be set back from any roof edge along a street, by a distance equal to or greater than the height of the loft or penthouse structure. See Figure 18.8. Figure 18.8 Measurement of Height Limits (3) Upper Story Stepbacks. (a) Historic Core, Innovation and North Mason Stepbacks: The fourth story of a building shall be stepped back an average of at least ten feet along all street frontages. Stepbacks may be continuous or may vary with a twenty (20) foot stepback counting towards the calculation of the required ten (10) foot average. (b) Canyon Avenue, Civic and Campus North Stepbacks: The fifth story of a building shall be stepped back an average of at least ten feet along all street frontages. Stepbacks may be continuous or may vary with up to a twenty (20) foot stepback counting towards the calculation of the required ten (10) foot average. Stepbacks may occur at the second to fifth stories. (4) Contextual Height Stepback. To provide an appropriate scale transition between opposing block faces with dissimilar height allowances, buildings shall provide a contextual height stepback. Upper floors shall be stepped back a minimum of three (3) feet at the equivalent height limit on the opposing block face. See Figure 18.9. -15- Figure 18.9 Contextual Height Stepbacks (5) Planning and Zoning Board Review of Large Buildings. Development plans with new buildings (or building additions) greater than twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet in floor area per story, or that exceed either six (6) stories or eight-five (85) feet in height, shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. (D) Site Design. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: (1) Parking lots, garage entries and service locations. Parking lots, garage entries and service locations shall be located on alleys. If no alley is present, they may be located on a Green Edge street. If a Green Edge street is not present, they may be located on a Mixed-Use street. To the maximum extent feasible, parking lots and garage entries shall not be located on Storefront streets. Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. (2) Parking structures. To the extent reasonably feasible, all parking structures shall meet the following design criteria: (a) Where parking structures abut streets, retail and other uses shall be required along the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity. (b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level. -16- (c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details, emphasis on vertical proportions such as posts, recessed horizontal panels and other architectural features shall be used to establish human scale at the street-facing level (3) Outdoor activity. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity that generates the users (such as street corners, offices, day care, shops and dwellings). Outdoor spaces shall be linked to and made visible from streets and sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible. Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible (E) Special Subdistrict Provisions. (1) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts: Plazas. For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts that are four (4) stories or taller, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made. (2) Civic Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The Civic Subdistrict will serve as an important element of the Downtown District and as the primary location for new civic uses and buildings. (b) Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all development in the Civic Subdistrict: 1. Civic Spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north-south and east-west pedestrian connections. The Civic Spine will serve to connect various buildings to unify parks and plazas. 2. Building materials. The use of local sandstone is required in all civic buildings to establish a visual continuity and a local sense of place. 3. Civic buildings. New major civic buildings, such as a library, government offices, courthouses, performing arts facilities and transit centers, shall be located within the Civic Subdistrict and placed in central locations as highly visible focal points. To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be close to a transit stop. -17- 4. Incorporation of new buildings. New buildings shall be designed in a manner that establishes continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings within and adjacent to the Civic Subdistrict. The height, mass and materials of major public buildings shall convey a sense of permanence and importance. (3) Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. Buildings located within the locally designated Old Town Fort Collins Historic District shall also comply with the Old Town Historic District Design Standards adopted by Ordinance 094, 2014, Chapter 14 of the City Code, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. See Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, Figure 19. Figure 19 Old Town Fort Collins Historic District (4) Innovation Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The Innovation Subdistrict is intended to recognize continuing redevelopment in this former industrial area, promoting employment and innovation. Redevelopment projects will continue to build up a fitting identity and character related to the Downtown District edge setting with contemporary semi-industrial building styles and materials. Streetscapes and sites will reinforce the area’s identity and character with design features that reflect an industrial character and the river landscape corridor. (b) Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all development in the Innovation Subdistrict: 1. Site Design -18- a. Landscaping/Vegetation Protection. Naturalistic characteristics of the river landscape shall be maintained and enhanced using plants and landscape materials native to the river corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements. b. Outdoor Spaces. Development shall incorporate outdoor spaces such as patios, courtyards, terraces and plazas to add interest and facilitate interaction. c. Color/Materials. Heavy, durable, locally fabricated components, with materials such as metal and stone, will be used creatively to complement building design. 2. Buildings. a. Height/Mass. Multi-story buildings shall be designed to step down to one (1) story directly abutting any natural habitat or feature protection buffer, and 2) must step down to three (3) stories at least 150 feet from any parcel zoned Low Density Residential (R-L) or Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). b. Parking lots. Buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are located in either: 1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the river, or 2) side yards. (5) River Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The River Subdistrict is intended to reestablish the linkage between the Historic Core and the Cache la Poudre River (the "River") through redevelopment in the corridor. This Subdistrict offers opportunities for more intensive redevelopment of housing, businesses and workplaces to complement the Historic Core Subdistrict. Improvements should highlight the historic origin of Fort Collins and the unique relationship of the waterway and railways to the urban environment as well as expand cultural opportunities in the Downtown area. Redevelopment will extend the positive characteristics of Downtown such as the pattern of blocks, pedestrian-oriented street fronts and lively outdoor spaces. (b) Development Standards. 1. Transition between the River and Development. -19- a. River Landscape Buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in subsection 3.4.1 (E) (Establishment of Buffer Zones) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the river as an integral part of a transition between development and the river. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub cover. (See Figure 19.1.) The landscape buffer shall be designed to prevent bank erosion and to stabilize the river bank in a manner adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event. The bank stabilization shall comply with the following criteria: Figure 19.1 Landscape Buffer i. Any bank stabilization improvements shall consist of native plants and stone, to the extent reasonably feasible. If any structural materials such as concrete are required, such materials shall be designed to emphasize characteristics of the native landscape such as color, texture, patterns and proportions, to minimize contrast with the river landscape. -20- ii. The predominant visual elements in any bank stabilization improvements shall be native vegetation and stone, notwithstanding the use of any integrated structural elements. Blank walls shall not be used to retain the slope of the river bank. b. Outdoor spaces. On sites that have river frontage between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue, buildings or clusters of buildings shall be located and designed to form outdoor spaces (such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards) on the river side of the buildings and/or between buildings, as integral parts of a transition between development and the River. A continuous connecting walkway (or walkway system) linking such spaces shall be developed, including coordinated linkages between separate development projects. 2. Streets and Walkways. a. Streets. Redevelopment shall maintain the existing block grid system of streets and alleys. To the extent reasonably feasible, the system shall be augmented with additional connections, such as new streets, alleys, walkway spines, mid-block passages, courtyards and plazas, to promote a fine-grained pedestrian circulation network that supplements public sidewalks. b. Driveways. To the extent reasonably feasible, driveways and curb cuts must be minimized to avoid disruption to the sidewalk network, by using shared driveways between properties. The width of driveways and turning radii must be minimized except where truck access is required. c. Jefferson Streetscape. Redevelopment activity along the Jefferson Street frontage shall provide formal streetscape improvements including street trees in sidewalk cutouts with tree grates and planters to screen parking. Planters to screen parking shall be designed and constructed to appear as integral extensions of the building design. Materials used shall not be inferior to those used in the construction of the principal building. 3. Buildings. a. Industrial Buildings. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (3), all new nonresidential buildings, including industrial buildings, shall comply with the standards for -21- Mixed-use and Commercial Buildings contained in Section 3.5.3. b. Programming, Massing and Placement. i. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings are permitted, provided that massing of multiple story buildings shall be terraced back from the river and from streets so that multiple story buildings are stepped down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage and are stepped down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. Such terraced massing shall be a significant and integral aspect of the building design. ii. Parking lots. Buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are in either: (1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the river, or (2) side yards. iii. Frequent view/access. No building wall abutting the landscape corridor along the River shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis along the River. iv. Outdoor spaces and amenities. To the extent reasonably feasible, all development shall provide on-site outdoor space such as courtyard, plaza, patio or other pedestrian-oriented outdoor space. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be visible from the street and shall be visually or physically connected with any outdoor spaces on adjacent properties. c. Character and Image. New buildings shall be designed to demonstrate compatibility with the historical agricultural/industrial characteristics of the Subdistrict to promote visual cohesiveness and emphasize positive historical attributes. Such characteristics include simple rectilinear building shapes, simple rooflines, juxtaposed building masses that directly express interior volumes/functions, visible structural components and joinery, details formed by brickwork, sandstone, sills, lintels, headers and foundations and details formed by joinery of structural materials. i. Outdoor spaces. Buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form architectural -22- outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards. ii. Windows. Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Windows shall be placed in a symmetrical pattern relative to the wall and massing. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominant style of fenestration for buildings in this Subdistrict. This requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features used as embellishments to the principal building. iii. Roof forms. Flat, shed and gable roof forms corresponding to massing and interior volumes/functions shall be the dominant roof forms. Flat-roofed masonry buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment integral with masonry on all walls facing streets, the River or connecting walkways. Additional decorative shaped cornices in wood (or other material indistinguishable from wood) shall be permitted in addition to the top masonry cornice treatment. Sloped metal roofs are allowed. Barrel roofs may be used as an accent feature but must be subordinate to the dominant roof. Specialized or unusual roof forms, including mansards and A- frames, are prohibited. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings except as part of a design style that emulates nearby landmarks (or structures eligible for landmark designation). iv. Materials. Building materials shall contribute to visual continuity within the Subdistrict. Textured materials with native and historic characteristics, such as brick, stone, wood, architectural cast stone and synthetic stone in historically compatible sandstone patterns only, architectural metals and materials with similar characteristics and proportions shall be used in a repeating pattern as integral parts of the exterior building fabric. Masonry units must wrap around the corners of -23- walls to not appear as an applied surface treatment. Other exterior materials, if any, shall be used as integral parts of the overall building fabric, in repeating modules, proportioned both horizontally and vertically to relate to human scale, and with enough depth at joints between architectural elements to cast shadows, to better ensure that the character and image of new buildings are visually related to the Downtown and River context. Lapped aluminum siding, vinyl siding, smooth- face concrete masonry units, synthetic stucco coatings and imitation brick are prohibited. v. Primary entrance. The primary entrance must be clearly identified and must be oriented to a major street, pedestrian way, place, courtyard and/or other key public space. The primary entrance must feature a sheltering element such as a canopy or be defined by a recess or a simple surround. vi. Accent features. Accent features, where used, must complement and not dominate the overall composition and design of the building and may include secondary entrances, loading docks, garage bays, balconies, canopies, cupolas, vertical elevator/stair shafts and other similar features. vii. Awnings and canopies. Awnings and canopies must complement the character of the building and must be subordinate to the facade. Colors must be solid or two (2) color stripes for simplicity. 4. Site Design. a. River Landscape. The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced, using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements. b. Walls, Fences and Planters. Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. c. Street Edge. A well-defined street edge must be established and shall be compatible with the streetscape in the public realm. Components may include any of the following: planted areas, decorative paving, public art, -24- street furnishing with ornamental lighting and iron and metal work that reflect on the agricultural/industrial heritage of the Subdistrict. d. Corner Lots. For sites located at public street corners, parking lots and vehicular use areas shall not abut more than one (1) street frontage. e. Parking. Where parking lots are highly visible from streets or pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces, a visual buffer must be provided. Such buffering may consist of any of the following singularly or in combination: a low solid screen wall, a semi-opaque screen or a living green wall consisting of plant material sufficient to provide a minimum of seventy-five-percent opacity year-round or other screening device that is sensitive to pedestrian activity. f. Interim Parking. Interim parking lots as a principal use may be approved with a gravel surface and without lighting and landscape improvements and shall be restricted to a period of use not to exceed three (3) years. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon a finding that the use is compatible with the context of the area and is a beneficial use which supports the purpose of the River Subdistrict. g. Service Areas and Outside Storage Areas. Service areas and outside storage areas that are not used for trash and recycling containers, dumpsters and mechanical equipment must, to the maximum extent feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and be screened from public view. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where industrial processes and outdoor mechanical activities are functionally integral to the principal use, such areas must, to the extent reasonably feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and not impact pedestrian areas. Partial screening must be provided with design and materials consistent with the building and/or the agricultural/industrial character of the area. 5. Design Guidelines. See also the Fort Collins River District Design Guidelines, which are intended to assist applicants in the preparation of development plans within the Subdistrict. (F) Permitted Uses. -25- (1) The following uses are permitted in the Downtown District subject to basic development review: (a) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (b) Any use that is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but that was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. (2) The following uses are permitted in the subdistricts of the Downtown District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR), Minor Amendment (MA), Administrative (Type 1) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below: -26- Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Accessory Buildings BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Adult Day/Respite Care Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Agricultural Activities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Artisan: Photography Galleries & Studios BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Bar/Tavern BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Bed and Breakfast Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Child Care Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Clubs and Lodges BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Community Facilities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Composting Facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Conference/Convention Center BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Convenience Store (w/o fuel sales) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Convenience Store (w/ fuel sales) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Day Shelters <10,000sf (w/in 1/4 mi of Transfort) Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Dog Day Care Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Domestic Violence Shelters BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Drive-In Facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Entertainment Facilities & Theatres BDR/MA Type 2 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 EOR Houses <5 tenants BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA EOR Houses >5 tenants Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 -27- Exhibit Halls BDR/MA Type 2 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 2 BDR/MA Fast Food Restaurant (without Drive Thru) BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Food Truck Rally Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type I Type 1 Gas Station Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 1 Grocery Store (5,000-45,000sf) Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Group homes Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Health & Membership Clubs BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Homeless Shelters Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Large Retail Establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Limited Indoor Recreation BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Lodging Establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Long-term Care Facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Medical Marijuana Center BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Medical Marijuana-infused product manufacturers Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Medical Marijuana Optional premises operations Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Microbrewery/Distillery/Winery BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Minor Public Facilities BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Mixed-Use Dwellings BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Mixed-Use above non-residential uses BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family <50 du/ <75 bedrooms BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 2 Multi-family >50 du/>75 bedrooms Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Music Facility, Multi-Purpose Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Music Studios Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Neighborhood Parks BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA -28- Night Club BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Non-Primary STR BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Offices: Financial Services, and Clinics BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Off-Site Construction Staging Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Open-Air Farmers Market Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Outdoor Amphitheatre Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Outdoor Vendor (Stationary) BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Outdoor Vendor (excluding Stationary) BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Parking Lots/Garage (as principle use) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Parks/Open Lands Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Personal & Business Service Shops BDR/MA BDR/MA Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Place of Worship/Assembly Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Primary STR BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Print Shops Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Public/Private school(college/vocational) BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Public/Private School (elem./int/high) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Research Laboratories Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Resource Recovery Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Retail Establishment BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Retail Marijuana Store BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Satellite Dishes more than 39" in Diameter BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Seasonal Overflow Shelters Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 SFD previously business back to SFD BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA -29- Single Family Detached dwellings Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Single-family attached dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Single-family detached dwellings with no more 800 sq. ft., constructed on lots w/ existing dwellings Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Small Scale Reception Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Small/Medium-Scale Solar Energy Systems Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Standard Restaurant BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Supermarkets Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Transit Facilities (w/o repair or storage) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Two-Family Dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Urban Agriculture Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Vehicle Minor Repair (indoor) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Type 1 Vehicle Major Repair Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Vehicle Sales Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Vet Facility/Small Animal Clinic Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Vet Hospital Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Wildlife rescue and education centers Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Wireless Telecommunication Equipment Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Workshops & Small Custom Industry Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 (G) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in above Subsection (F) or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. -30- Section 6. That Division 4.17 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and held in reserve. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of March, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of April, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of April, A.D. 2019. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk CIVIC CENTER D OLD CITY D CENTER Downtown Rezoning Zoning Community Commercial (CC) Community Commercial North College (CCN) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) General Commercial (CG) Limited Commercial (CL) Service Commercial (CS) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) Harmony Corridor (HC) Industrial (I) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) River Conservation (RC) River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Residential Foothills (RF) Low Density Residential (RL) Rural Lands District (RUL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Miles Scale 1:17,000 © EXHIBIT "A"