HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/04/2019 - ITEMS RELATING TO VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OAgenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 4, 2019
City Council
WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No.077, 2019, Making Various Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2019, Amending the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Regarding
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Variances to Certain Land Use Code
Standards
The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of revisions, clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code that
are generally routine in nature that have been identified since the last update in February 2019. The proposed
change to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director to process certain variances
is presented as a separate ordinance because the change is not necessarily routine in nature and would allow
the Director to process certain variances currently reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a
regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications. While most revisions are bundled and
adopted on an annual basis, other changes may occur as needed so the Land Use Code retains maximum
effectiveness. The proposed changes are offered to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve
both the overall quality and user friendliness of the Code. Additional details regarding the changes are contained
in the attachments to this Agenda Item Summary.
The proposed change to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director to process
certain variances is presented as a separate ordinance because the change is not necessarily routine in nature
and would allow the Director to process certain variances currently reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The variances the Director would review would be limited to the following:
(1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent.
(2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot.
(3) In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area in the rear half of the lot increase
of up to ten (10) percent, provided the increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire
lot.
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
(4) Building height increase of up to one (1) foot.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 16, 2019, regular hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously adopted staff recommendation
that City Council approve the revisions.
Additionally, at its May 9, 2019, regular meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended to
City Council approval of the revision to allow the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
to process certain variances.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed changes were listed on "This Week in Development Review," a weekly online notice that is posted
on the Planning Department's website and sent to approximately 435 subscribers.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Issues (PDF)
2. Description of Issues (PDF)
3. Ordinance Index of Issues (PDF)
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 16, 2019 (draft) (PDF)
5. Zoning Board of Appeals minutes, May 9, 2019 (draft) (PDF)
Land Use Code Issues
Thursday, May 09, 2019 Page 1 of 2
Issue ID# Issue Name
1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting.
1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new provisions for a variety
of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees.
1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a list
of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a reference to the Development Review
Checklist.
1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and
services for which compliance with requirements and specifications must be achieved.
1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance between the staging area for emergency
responders and access into individual single family attached dwelling units
1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete the
ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to-floor allowance
1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two
accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if
stealth.
1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete
Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone.
1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to single family on
platted lots.
1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as
stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for consistency.
1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic Development
Review and make other minor edits.
1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and traffic control signs
from 20 to 50 feet.
1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written notice,
including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR decision.
1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000 degrees
Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting technology.
1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards - to
clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the
ECS for potential ecological value.
1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be
evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not meet the mitigation criteria under
Tree Protection in 3.2.1.
1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to
revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
ATTACHMENT 1
Thursday, May 09, 2019 Page 2 of 2
Issue ID# Issue Name
1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to
revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics, clarify
height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height.
1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a new
reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process has become more formalized.
Land Use Code Maintenance Process
Annotated Issue List
1046
Placeholder for Formatting Reports
and Ordinance
Problem Statement
N.A.
Proposed Solution Overview
N.A.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
1 N.A. N.A.
1093
Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and Replacement - to update, revise and add new
provisions for a variety of aspects related to Landscape Plans with the primary focus on
trees.
Problem Statement
This section covers all aspects of landscaping and has not been updated since initial
adoption. There have been many changes over the years to best practices for landscaping
design, installation, and mitigation. Issues related to mitigation for the Emerald Ash
Borer, payment in lieu, tree cut-outs, tree protection and critical root zone are now
addressed.
Proposed Solution Overview
The propose solution is a comprehensive update of the Landscaping section.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
6 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code.
1094 Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
– to delete a list of specific stormwater implementation techniques and replace with a
reference to the Development Review Checklist.
Problem Statement
The problem is that the current Code explicitly details all the Stormwater features to be
inspected with their inspections being at the point of installation. Adding new features, or
points of inspection, would require a Code change. Instead, the proposed language will
simply require inspections of specific private improvements and features at certain points
of installation as called out in the Development Certification Checklist required to be
submitted to Water Utilities Engineering. Any changes could then efficiently be made on
the Development Certification Checklist as they arise.
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the specific references to porous pavers, bioretention
cells, rain gardens, sand filters, extended detention basins and underground treatment and
replace with a broad reference to the Development Certification Checklist.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
9 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of
improvements with a checklist.
1095 Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add
Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services for
which compliance with requirements and specifications must
be achieved.
Problem Statement
The list of utilities and services for which compliance must
be achieved does not include
City’s newest utility - Broadband / Fiber Optic.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add Broadband /
Fiber Optic to the list.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to
the list.
2
1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum distance
between the staging area for emergency responders and access
into individual single family attached dwelling units
Problem Statement
A relatively recent development trend is to orient single
family attached dwellings such that they do not front on
public streets, private streets, or street-like private drives.
Instead, these dwellings front on connecting walkways or
major walkway spines and face common area open space
often referred to as greenbelts, or greenways, or green courts.
This results in the back of units facing a private alley and
consisting only of the garage with no direct doors into the
individual unit. Consequently, emergency responders and
their equipment can only gain access to these dwellings and
stage their equipment from these private alleys at the rear of
the units. But in order to get into the unit, emergency
responders must go around three sides of the building to the
front. Such arrangements also require alleys to be named and
that addresses be posted in the back.
The standard requirement for building perimeter access for
fire fighting in the Fire Code for the Poudre Fire Authority is
150 feet as measured from the designated fire lane around the
building. While this standard is adequate for addressing the
physical building perimeter, and may be slightly increased if
there is an automatic fire sprinkler systems, it is silent with
regard to doors that provide access into individual units for
medical emergencies.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add a requirement that at least
one door provide direct access for emergency responders into an
individual single family attached unit and not be greater than 150
feet from where emergency responders and their equipment can
stage and this access cannot be through the garage. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
13 3.5.2(D)(3)
Requires at least one door into
single family attached dwellings be
within 150 feet of emergency access
staging area.
1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring Building Height - to correct a
discrepancy and delete the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet from floor-to
floor allowance
Problem Statement
This section allows the height of a residential structure to measured as a maximum of 25
feet from floor-to-floor. This standard contains two references: commercial and
residential. The reference to residential was inadvertently not deleted at the time a newer
standard was adopted which calls for the maximum vertical height of 12 feet, eight inches,
for each residential story, which is now the prevailing standard. The two standards are in
conflict. Also, at this time, adding a reference to industrial would provide further
3
explanation as industrial buildings are more likely to rely on greater distances between
floors than commercial buildings such as offices, hotels, retail stores and the like.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to delete the reference to residential in the standard that allows
commercial buildings to have a maximum height of 25 feet from floor-to-floor and add a
reference to industrial buildings. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
14 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential,
adds industrial to measuring maximum building height.
1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add Wireless Telecommunications
Facility as a Type Two accessory use but restricted to non-residential properties such as
Places of Worship or Assembly, and only if stealth.
Problem Statement
The creation of private sector wireless communication networks has evolved since the
adoption of the federal Wireless Telecommunication Act of 1996. As originally
implemented, monopoles, ranging in height from 40 to 100 feet, were deemed adequate to
provide coverage over a specified geographic area. Now, with new technologies, and a
higher concentration of users in urban areas, providers are building networks that use a
combination of facilities (pole-mounted antennas) and equipment (building-mounted
antennas) that are at lower heights but more frequently dispersed.
Recently staff has processed two Requests for Additions of Permitted Use to allow
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the R-L zone. Both were located on
nonresidential properties, mitigated by stealth installation and both were approved. With
large areas of the City zoned R-L, and with the demand by consumers for coverage and
market response to provide coverage, allowing Facilities in the R-L would be appropriate
but restricted to non-residential properties. As mitigation, installations using stealth
techniques, such as church steeples, bell towers or silos would be required.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to add Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type Two
permitted accessory use in the R-L zone with standards restricting installations to
nonresidential properties and using stealth technology as visual mitigation.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
15 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2
Accessory Use in R-L.
16 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L.
1100 Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial zone district – Type One Permitted Use
List – to delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200 feet from N. College
Avenue portion of the C-S zone.
Problem Statement
Storage units are a land use that is contrary to the vision for urban evolution of synergistic
uses in the C-S-zoned portions of the North College Avenue corridor. The vision is
explained in the adopted North College Corridor Plan. An Urban Renewal Plan, Market
Analysis, and an Infrastructure Funding Plan are also in place to help implement the
vision.
4
The City and its Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Citizen Advisory Group (CAG)
continually seek solutions to remedy problems of past ad hoc subdivision of land when the
area was the outskirts of town along US Highway 287. Examples of such problems are
defective and inadequate street layout and faulty lot layout in relation to accessibility,
utility infrastructure, drainage, flooding, and overall functionality as part of the city.
Retrofitting needed infrastructure and improving functionality generally depend upon
cooperation and participation across various existing land parcels. Assembly of land or
land pooling by owners of multiple parcels is needed in some cases to form more cohesive
development. These issues are described in plan documents.
The risk of a new storage unit development project creating a potentially new obstacle to
achieving the vision and goals has been recognized by staff and the URA CAG for some
time. There have been inquiries by owners where this would be the case. In discussions
with staff, inquiries have so far not become actual development proposals.
Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities are a relatively expedient use with minimal need for
connectivity or public infrastructure, creating spots of low activity with no synergy with
surrounding parcels. Storage uses exist and are appropriate in an Industrial zone portion
of the area on the east side of North College Avenue.
A significant amount of public investment has been expended in the corridor to implement
the vision and remedy problems. Local, State and Federal funds have been used to
construct major public improvements from Jefferson Street to State Highway 1 including
street, railroad, drainage, and other utility infrastructure with associated beautification and
pedestrian improvements. Staff’s latest estimate of public investment since adoption of
the North College Corridor Plan in 1995 is in the range of $50-60 million. This
investment has resulted in economic activity and real estate development projects such as
the North College Marketplace, Lyric Cinema, Crowne Apartments at Old Town North,
and Jax Expansion among others.
Since the original 1995 North College Corridor Plan and its associated zoning, conditions
have changed to the point where there is positive economic momentum resulting in urban
evolution, but crucial improvements are still needed in key portions of the area where a
storage unit development would be incompatible.
Proposed Solution Overview
Delete Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities from the North College Avenue corridor area in
C-S, Service Commercial zone district. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
20 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from
N. College in C-S zone.
1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions - Applicability - to clarify applicability to
single family on platted lots.
Problem Statement
The Applicability Section at the beginning of Article 3 contains terminology and language
that confuses applicability to single family houses.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the language to add clarity with regard to single family
detached dwellings. Related Code Revisions
5
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
5 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family
detached dwellings.
1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center - to match the description of a
Neighborhood Center as stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) - for
consistency.
Problem Statement
The definition of ‘Neighborhood Center’ in the LMN zone does not match the standards
for the LMN zoning district in Article 4. The difference: the LMN zone district includes
mixed-use dwelling units as an option for one of two uses that must be combined in order
to qualify a development as a Neighborhood Center; while the definition in Article 5
mentions “a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses…”.
Thus the question is whether or not the inclusion of a dwelling unit above a nonresidential
use qualifies a development as a Neighborhood Center. The LMN zone district list of
Permitted Uses includes the following (note that mixed-use dwelling units are included):
“Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use
dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service
shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics; community
facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; limited
indoor recreation establishments; open-air farmers markets; and places of worship or
assembly.” Likewise a Land Use Standard in the LMN zone district states:
4.5(D)(3)(c)
“Land Use Requirements. A neighborhood center shall include two (2) or more of the
following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood
support/recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; places of worship or assembly;
convenience retail stores; retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics…”
Contrary to those LMN standards, the definition of Neighborhood Center mentions two
nonresidential uses:
“Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidential uses and
an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting place for
a Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.”
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend 5.1.2, the definition of Neighborhood Center, to match the description in LMN
zone district per 4.5(D)(3). Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
21 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for
consistency with LMN permitted use.
1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review Procedures - to add references to Basic
Development Review and make other minor edits.
Problem Statement
Since the adoption of the Code, projects that are not required to be subject to a public
hearing, either Type One or Two, were referred to as Building Permit Review and then later
renamed to Basic Development Review (BDR). Such projects include uses that are
fundamentally considered compatible with the underlying zone district and are generally not
complex. All relevant standards are applied to these projects. The original Code section that
describes the overview of the development review procedures made no mention of this review
6
process because there was, at that time, no formal routing, commenting, project tracking and no
requirement for a public hearing. Over time, however, BDR’s have become more formalized.
Consequently, the Code would be more current and user-friendly if BDR’s were described in
the overview. Proposed Solution Overview
The solution is to add references to BDR’s in the overview section and make minor edits
for clarity.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review.
1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase the distance between street trees and
traffic control signs from 20 to 50 feet.
Problem Statement
This provision of code presently requires a 20-foot separation from shade and/or
ornamental trees to traffic control sign and devises. Twenty feet of separation from a tree
to a stop (or yield sign), as well as 20 feet of separation from a tree to a traffic signal has
presented challenges in maintaining adequate sight distance to the traffic signage and
signals. A greater separation of 50 feet would help ensure that line of sight to the traffic
control device is adequately maintained throughout the maturity of the tree.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standard from 20 feet to 50 feet.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
7 3.2.1(K)(2) Increases the distance between trees and traffic control
signs.
1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development Review - Decision and Findings - to provide
written notice, including appeal information, to abutting property owners regarding a BDR
decision.
Problem Statement
We recently adopted a Code revision that removes the obligation to provide notice (sign
posting, newspaper published notice and written letter to A.P.O.’s) for all B.D.R.’s that
are not Minor Subdivisions that create new lots. Since all B.D.R.’s are appealable, there
remains a burden to let the public know that a decision has been made. With the new
revision, we have moved from providing an abundance of notice to providing a dearth of
notice. If a B.D.R. decision is appealable, but there is no practical manner for an abutting
property owner to become informed of such decision, then the appeal process lacks
transparency.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to provide post-decision notice to abutting property owners.
(Again, for Minor Subdivisions that yield a new lot, full notification is already required.) This
notice would also include appeal information. Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
4 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters.
7
1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must not exceed correlated color
temperature of 3,000 degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new lighting
technology.
Problem Statement
City Council adopted Resolution 2016-074 expressing Council’s intent and General Policy
Considerations Regarding Night Sky Objectives (September 20, 2016). The Resolution
states that, “the City will incorporate dark sky policies and standards into Building Codes,
Land Use Codes, and Streetscape standards when applicable and appropriate.” An
interdisciplinary staff team continues to work with a consultant to comprehensively
address lighting issues and promote dark sky policies both on a citywide basis, and out of
the city in the case of natural areas.
In the short term, however, staff has identified two quick fixes to acknowledge the advent
of LED (light emitting diodes) technology and to implement a maximum correlated color
temperature (CCT) to reduce glare. These two revisions have been identified as
noncontroversial and are being practiced now but on a recommendation basis only.
Codifying at this time allows for the implementation of dark sky policies in a timely
manner.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to adopt the revisions identified by staff working on the dark sky
policies.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
8 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees
Kelvin.
8 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references.
1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features - 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone
Performance Standards - to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize that non-
native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in the ECS for potential ecological value.
Problem Statement
Under (E)(1), the sentence that allows stated buffer zone dimensions to be adjusted based
on performance standards is currently worded in a way that confuses the concept. General
buffer zone dimensions are stated in a table, but those dimensions are accompanied by a
proviso that the decision maker may reduce a dimension if listed performance standards
are achieved. Current wording, however, suggests that the decision maker must reduce a
stated dimension if necessary to achieve the listed performance standards. It would never
be necessary to reduce a dimension to achieve the performance standards, that is simply
incorrect wording.
Rather, the performance standards are to allow a dimension to be reduced if the
performance standards are met.
This wording has caused awkward and confusing discussion in at least two development
projects where a dimension was reduced based on achieving the performance standards,
but it was not necessary to do so.
Under (E)(1)(c), the current language states that only existing trees and vegetation that are
deemed significant per 3.2.1 - Tree Protection Standards for Landscape Plans - are to be
preserved. Staff has found, however, that existing non-significant trees and vegetation
have habitat value and must be considered for preservation and accounted for in any
evaluation by an Ecological Characterization Study.
8
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution to (E)(1) is to reword the language for clarity. The proposed
solution to (E)(1)(c) is to revise and add language that states all non-native trees and
vegetation must be considered for preservation even though some species may not be
considered significant under the Tree Protection standards for Landscape Plans in
3.2.1(F). This would allow clusters of non-native species such as Siberian Elms
and Russian Olive to be considered for habitat and ecological values. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
12 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are
not significant to be evaluated for ecological value.
12 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended.
1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization Study - to clarify that non-native trees &
vegetation be evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain species would not
meet the mitigation criteria under Tree Protection in 3.2.1.
Problem Statement
The current Code section is in need of updating and enhanced specificity. City
Environmental Planning staff have encountered numerous development projects where
trees proposed for removal do not meet tree mitigation criteria in 3.2.1 under Landscaping
yet provide habitat value, as determined by Environmental staff during site visits and/or
biologists in ecological characterization studies. While tree mitigation in 3.2.1 accounts
for lost ecological and environmental value, habitat value is secondary to tree condition,
caliper and species, thereby disqualifying trees with habitat value from mitigation. There
is a need to allow environmental planners to mitigate for lost habitat value to better reflect
the intent of section 3.4.1 of the Code, which strives to protect natural habitats and
features on the site and in the vicinity of the site during development.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed Code revision allows mitigation for trees not covered under Section 3.2.1 of
the Code on properties containing a habitat buffer zone. Mitigation plantings will occur
within the natural habitat buffer zone to maintain the site’s habitat and ecological function.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
11 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat
value of nonnative trees and vegetation.
1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and
Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage houses,
add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
9
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
17 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards, Dimensional Standards and
Development Standards - to revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add
dormer standards and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
18 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and Dimensional Standards to revise floor area
metrics, clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer standards, and clarify eave height.
Problem Statement
As design standards for accessory building/carriage houses have evolved, repetitive
standards have been created in the Land Use Code. The repetitive standards have not
always been consistent and have led to confusion. Clarification is needed for the
standards that address maximum allowable floor area, maximum allowable height and
maximum eave height. Additionally, accessory buildings/carriages houses do not
currently limit the size of a dormer and how that that may increase wall and eave heights.
It is unclear at what size are dormers an acceptable deviation to eaves and wall height
limitations.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed solution is to amend the standards that are repetitive and provide clear
direction on design standards of accessory buildings/carriage houses. Related Code
Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
10
19 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate -
to add a new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development Review since the BDR process
has become more formalized.
Problem Statement
When the LUC was established, there was no formalized Basic Development Review
procedure. These projects were considered minor in scope and permitted subject to
simply applying for a building permit and the review process was informally managed by
the zoning administrator as a building permit review. As time went on, however, these
projects became more complex requiring a review process more comparable to a P.D.P.
versus a building permit. The term Basic Development Review was initiated along with a
more formal review process, which now includes an appeal procedure and contained
within a relatively new section 2.18. Currently, under the Common Development Review
Procedures – Step 12: Appeals, there is no reference to Basic Development Review.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a reference to Basic Development Review under the common development review
procedures.
Related Code Revisions
Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect
3 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR.
11
Land Use Code Revisions
Annotated Ordinance Index
Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
1 N.A.
N.A. 1046 Placeholder for Reports and Ordinance formatting.
2 2.1.2(C) Adds a specific reference to Basic Development Review. 1103 Amend 2.1.2(C) - Overview of Development Review
Procedures - to add references to Basic Development
Review and make other minor edits.
3 2.2.12 Adds a reference to BDR. 1117 Amend 2.2.12 - Common Development Review
Procedures - Step 12: Appeals / Alternate - to add a
new reference to Section 2.18 - Basic Development
Review since the BDR process has become more
formalized.
4 2.18.3(G) Requires notice of BDR decision to abutters. 1107 Amend 2.18.3(G) - Step 7(D) - Basic Development
Review - Decision and Findings - to provide written
notice, including appeal information, to abutting
property owners regarding a BDR decision.
5 3.1.1 Clarifies the applicability of Article 3 to single family detached
dwellings.
1101 Amend 3.1.1 Article Three - General Provisions -
Applicability - to clarify applicability to single
family on platted lots.
6 3.2.1 Comprehensive update of the Landscaping section of the Code. 1093 Amend 3.2.1(A - N) - Tree Protection and
Replacement - to update, revise and add new
provisions for a variety of aspects related to
Landscape Plans with the primary focus on trees.
ATTACHMENT 3
1
7 3.2.1(K)(2) Increases the distance between trees and traffic control signs. 1106 Amend 3.2.1(K)(2) - Utilities and Traffic - to increase
the distance between street trees and traffic control
signs from 20 to 50 feet.
Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
8 3.2.4(D)(11) Maximum correlated color temperature 3000 degrees
Kelvin.
1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must
not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000
degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new
lighting technology.
8 3.2.4(D)(5) Deletes obsolete references. 1109 Amend 3.2.4 - Lighting - to add that light fixtures must
not exceed correlated color temperature of 3,000
degrees Kelvin and make minor edits based on new
lighting technology.
9 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) Replaces detailed list of improvements with a checklist. 1094
Amend 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) – Required Improvements Prior
to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy – to delete a
list of specific stormwater implementation techniques
and replace with a reference to the Development
Review Checklist.
10 3.3.5 Adds Broadband and Fiber Optic to the list. 1095
Amend 3.3.5 – Engineering Design Standards – to add
Broadband / Fiber Optic to the list of utilities and services
for which compliance with requirements and
specifications must be achieved.
11 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) Clarifies that the ECS describe the habitat value of nonnative
trees and vegetation.
1111 Amend 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) - Ecological Characterization
Study - to clarify that non-native trees & vegetation be
evaluated for potential habitat value even though certain
species would not meet the mitigation criteria under
Tree Protection in 3.2.1.
12 3.4.1(E)(1) Corrects the standard as originally intended. 1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features -
3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards -
to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize
that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in
the ECS for potential ecological value.
12 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) Clarifies that all non-native trees and vegetation that are
not significant to be evaluated for ecological value.
1110 Amend 3.4.1(E)(1) - Natural Habitats and Features -
3.4.1(E)(1)(c) - Buffer Zone Performance Standards -
to clarify the scope of the buffer zone and emphasize
that non-native trees & vegetation must be evaluated in
the ECS for potential ecological value.
2
13 3.5.2(D)(3) Requires at least one door into single family attached
dwellings be within 150 feet of emergency access staging
area.
1096 Amend 3.5.2(D) to establish 150 feet as the maximum
distance between the staging area for emergency
responders and access into individual single family
attached dwelling units
14 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) Deletes the reference to residential, adds industrial to
measuring maximum building height.
1098 Amend 3.8.17(A)(2)(b) - Building Height - Measuring
Building Height - to correct a discrepancy and delete
the ability of a residential structure to use the 25-feet
from floor-to-floor allowance
Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue
15 4.4(B)(3) Adds Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as a Type 2
Accessory Use in R-L.
1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add
Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two
accessory use but restricted to non-residential
properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and
only if stealth.
16 4.4(D)(4) Adds standards for W.T.F. in R-L. 1099 Amend 4.4(B)(3)(d) - R-L Permitted Use List - to add
Wireless Telecommunications Facility as a Type Two
accessory use but restricted to non-residential
properties such as Places of Worship or Assembly, and
only if stealth.
17 4.7(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1113 Amend 4.7(D)(E)(F) - N-C-L Land Use Standards,
Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to
revise floor area metrics, clarify the height of carriage
houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
18 4.8(D)(E)(F) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1115 Amend 4.8(D)(E)(F) - N-C-M Land Use Standards,
Dimensional Standards and Development Standards - to
revise floor area metrics, clarify height of carriage
houses, add dormer standards and clarify eave height.
19 4.9(D)(E) Clarifies standards related to allowable floor area, height,
dormers and eaves of accessory buildings and carriage
houses.
1116 Amend 4.9(D)(E) - N-C-B Land Use Standards and
Dimensional Standards to revise floor area metrics,
clarify height of carriage houses, add dormer
standards, and clarify eave height.
20 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 Deletes Enclosed Mini-Storage from N. College in C-S
zone.
1100
Amend 4.22(B)(2)(c) 28. – C-S, Service Commercial
zone district – Type One Permitted Use List – to delete
Enclosed Mini-Storage Facilities if located at least 200
feet from N. College Avenue portion of the C-S zone.
3
21 5.1.2 Amends the definition of Neighborhood Center for
consistency with LMN permitted use.
1102 Amend 5.1.2 - Definition of a Neighborhood Center -
to match the description of a Neighborhood Center as
stated in the LMN development standards - 4.5(D)(3) -
for consistency.
4
Planning & Zoning Board
May 16, 2019
Page 2 of 2
None reported
Staff Response
None reported
Board Questions / Deliberation
None reported
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make the
recommendation to City Council to update the annual land use code amendments as presented at this
hearing. This is based on the agenda materials, information in the packets, information that was presented
during the work session, this hearing tonight and the Board discussion on this item. This information,
analysis, findings of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for
this hearing are to be adopted by this Board. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 6:0.
6-B. Land Use Code Revisions
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding revision to the Land Use
Code. This revision would allow minor variances that are considered routine to be authorized by the Director. This
revision is accompanied by the annual Spring package of revisions to the Land Use Code but is a separate
Ordinance due to the new authorization.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber reported that no citizen emails or letters had been received.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Completed in 6-A
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
None noted
Staff Response
None noted
Board Questions / Deliberation
None noted
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make the
recommendation to City Council land use code revisions to law variances by the Director. This is based on
the agenda materials and information in the packets, information that was presented during the work
session, this hearing tonight and the Board discussion on this item. This information, analysis, findings of
fact and conclusion contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are to be
adopted by this Board. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0.
***END EXCERPT HERE***
ATTACHMENT 4
Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 May 9, 2019
The actual property line was a surprise to the owner, as they built the house and have lived there for
20 years. The owner and all the neighbors considered the back fence to be the property line. The
sunroom will be visually appealing and will not block anyone’s view.
Audience Participation:
(None)
Board Discussion:
Boardmember LaMastra requested the measurements from the fence to the edge of the sunroom.
Beals confirmed that is 15 feet. LaMastra stated this sounds nominal and inconsequential. The HOA
will not make everyone redo the fence. The perception is that this meets code. This was an error
made in the past, no fault of the owner.
Boardmember Stockover pointed out there is a large retention pond behind this property that will
never be built upon.
Boardmember LaMastra made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve ZBA190017 for the
following reasons: the variance request is not detrimental to the public good, the additional
HOA owned detention pond immediately behind the property provides enough separation to
meet a rear-yard 15’ setback making this nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the variance
request will not diverge from the standard but in a nominal, inconsequential way, when
considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purpose of
the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Amendment to Land Use Code Variance Requests
Beals presented the LUC changes to the board. This would allow staff level decisions to be made
prior to coming before this board. Beals presented the circumstances and thresholds of these
changes, including setback encroachments, a fence height increase, allowable floor area in the rear
half of the lot, and building height increases all within specific parameters. Also, once a variance is
approved, there is an expiration date to receive that building permit. Currently, an extension requires
them to come before the board again. Part of these changes are to allow the Director to approve this
one-time extension. If the applicant takes longer than that, they will need to come before this board
again with that request.
This item is before the board to seek a recommendation on the code changes.
Boardmember Lamastra asked if there are still notifications sent out to the surrounding property
owners, even if staff are approving these decisions. Beals confirmed there will be public notice, this
was brought up by a community member as well. Public notice will still be required 14 days prior to
the director’s decision.
Chair Shields agreed with what is addressed in these changes.
Boardmember Stockover made a motion, seconded by Long, to approve the draft ordinance to
City Council as it pertains to variances that come before this board and variances that can be
processed by the Director.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover, Long, Meyer, Shields, McCoy, LaMastra
Nays: None.
The Motion was carried.
• ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENT 5
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 077, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have
continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain
issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously
recommended that City Council adopt the Land Use Code changes set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures
. . .
(C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a
development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type
of development application should be selected and submitted. All development
proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved
through the following development applications: first through a project
development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If
the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development
plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required
-2-
prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development
plans, PUD Overlays, basic development reviews, project development plans and
final plans are the four (4) five (5) types of development applications for
permitted uses. Each successive development application for a development
proposal must build upon the previously approved development application, as
needed, by providing additional details (through the development application
submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards
(contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District
Standards of Article 4). Overall development plans, basic development reviews
and project development plans may be consolidated into one (1) application for
concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the provisions
of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of
development applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3.
Section 3. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be
only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless
otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 of this
Code.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 2.18.3(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures
. . .
Step 7(D)(1 and 2) : (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution thereof,
after consideration of the development application, the Director shall issue a written
decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application based
on compliance with the standards referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development
Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The written decision shall be mailed to the
applicant,and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and to
the abutting property owners, and shall also be posted on the City's website at
www.fcgov.com.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 3.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.1.1 - Applicability
-3-
All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the
applicable standards contained in divisions 3.1 through 3.9 3.11, except that with the
following exceptions:
(A) sSingle-family detached dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses on platted
lots that are subject only to building permit review.under article 4, as well as any
(B) aAccessory buildings, structures and accessory uses associated with the such
single-family dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses listed in (A) above,.
Applications for the development noted in exceptions (A) and (B) above must need to
comply only with: (a) the standards contained in article 4 for the zone district in which
such uses are located; (b) the standards contained in division 3.8; and (c) with respect to
extra occupancy rental houses, the additional standards contained in sSection
3.2.2(k)(1)(j).
Existing Development. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall continue to
apply to ongoing use of land in a completed developments to the extent that the
provisions of this lLand uUse cCode can be reasonably and logically interpreted as
having such ongoing application.
Section 6. That Section 3.2.1(A) through (I) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection
(A) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development (except for development on
existing lots for single-family detached dwellings) within the designated "limits of
development" ("LOD") and natural habitatarea buffer zones established according to
Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features).
(B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree
protection plans that ensure significant canopy cover is created, diversified and
maintained shading so that all associated social and environmental benefits are
maximized to the extent reasonably feasible. These benefits include reduced erosion and
stormwater runoff, improved water conservation, air pollution mitigation, to reduced
glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality increased aesthetics, and improved
continuity within and between developments. Trees planted in appropriate spaces also,
provide screening and may mitigateion of potential conflicts between activity areas and
other site elements while, enhancinge outdoor spaces, all of which add to a more resilient
urban forest., reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and
mitigate air pollution.
. . .
-4-
(D) Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along
all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located
within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial
urban tree canopy. The groves and belts may also be combined or interspersed with other
landscape areas in remaining portions of the development to accommodate views and
functions such as active recreation and storm drainage.
(1) Minimum Plantings/Description. These tree standards require at least a minimum
tree canopy but are not intended to limit additional tree plantings in any remaining
portions of the development. Groves and belts of trees shall be required as
follows:
. . .
(c) “full tree stocking” shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty
(50) feet of any building or structure as further described below.
Landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and
dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high
visibility sides of any building or structure. Such landscape areas shall
extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and
contain at least fifty-five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area, except
that any planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen thirty-
two (1632) square feet. A minimum planting cutout of four (4) feet wide
shall be provided and the recommended lengths are as follows: eight (8)
feet, ten (10) feet or twelve (12) feet. Applicants are encouraged to
investigate and implement, subject to City approval, alternative methods
or subsurface technologies to promote tree root growth. Planting cutouts,
planters or other landscape areas for tree planting shall be provided within
any walkway that is twelve (12) feet or greater in width adjoining a
vehicle use area that is not covered with an overhead fixture or canopy
that would prevent growth and maturity.
. . .
(2) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of-
way, except as described in subparagraph (b) below, in connection with the
development by one (1) or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a)
through (ce) below:
. . .
(b) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a manner that fails to
comply with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, canopy
shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from three four (34) to
seven (7) feet behind the sidewalk at the spacing intervals as required in
subsection (a) above. Planting shall occur on public right-of-way if it is
-5-
wide enough, otherwise trees shall be planted on adjoining private
property to comply with this subsection.
(c) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street and is ten (10) feet or more
in width, or extends from the curb to the property line, canopy shade trees
shall be established in planting cutout areas of at least sixteen thirty-two
(1632) square feet at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing.
(d) Ornamental trees shall be planted in substitution for the canopy shade
trees required in subsection (D)(2)(a) and (b) above where overhead lines
and fixtures prevent normal growth and maturity. Ornamental trees shall
be placed at least fifteen (15) feet away from any streetlight.
(e) Wherever existing ash trees (Fraxinus species) are in the adjoining street
right-of-way, the applicant shall coordinate and obtain an onsite analysis
with the City Forester to determine replacement canopy shade trees either
through shadow planting or other emerald ash borer mitigation methods.
(3) Minimum Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility
and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or
the district, species diversity is required, and extensive monocultures are
prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development
plan.
Number of trees
on site
Maximum percentage of
any one species
10—19 50%
20—39 33%
40—59 25%
60 or more 15%
(4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes. The Director City Forester shall provide a
recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements
for landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as
street trees. The following minimum sizes shall be required (except as provided in
subparagraph (5) below):
Type Minimum Size
Canopy Shade Tree
2.0" caliper balled and burlapped
or equivalent
Evergreen Tree
6.0' height balled and burlapped
or equivalent
-6-
Ornamental Tree
1.5" caliper balled and burlapped
or equivalent
Shrubs
5 gallon or adequate size
consistent with design intent or 1
gallon may be permitted if
planting within the Critical Root
Zone of existing trees
Canopy Shade Tree
as a street tree on a
Residential Local
Street Only
1.25" caliper container or
equivalent
Any tree plantings that are in addition to those that are made as part of the
approved landscape plan are exempt from the foregoing size requirements.
. . .
(F) Tree Protection Preservation and Mitigation Replacement. Existing significant trees
(six (6) inches and greater in diameter) within the LOD and within natural habitat area
buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the
landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be
considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions
contained in subsection (2) below. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to
minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. All required landscape plans shall
accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees, each
labeled showing the applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant
them to another on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to the
following schedule and requirements and shall. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy
the tree planting standards of this Section. To the extent reasonably feasible,
Rreplacement trees shall be planted either on the development site or, if not reasonably
feasible, in the closest available and suitable planting site on public or private property.
The closest available and suitable planting site shall be selected within one-half (½) mile
(2,640 feet) of the development site, subject to the following exceptions. If suitable
planting sites for all of the replacementmitigation trees are not available within one-half
(½) mile (2,640 feet) of the development, then the planting site shall be selected within
one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the development site. If suitable planting sites are not
available for all of the mitigation trees within one (1) mile (5,280 feet) of the
development site, then the City Forester shall determine the most suitable planting
location within the City's boundaries as close to the development site as feasible. If
locations for planting replacement trees cannot be located within one-half (½) mile of the
development site, the applicant may, instead of planting such replacement trees, submit a
payment in lieu to the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division to be used to plant
replacement trees to plant replacement trees as close to the development site as possible.
-7-
The payment in lieu mitigation fee per tree is determined by the City Forester and may be
adjusted annually based on market rates. Payment must be submitted prior to the
Development Construction Permit issuance or other required permits.
(1) A significant tree that is removed shall be replaced with not less than one (1) or
more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of contribution
and value of the removed significant tree(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing,
significant Siberian elm, and Russian-olive located in a natural habitat buffer
found to contain ecological value, as provided in paragraph 3.4.1(D)(1) of this
Code, shall be mitigated in accordance with subparagraph 3.4.1(E)(2)(b) of this
Code. The applicant shall select either the coordinate with the City Forester or a
qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based upon an onsite tree
assessment appraisal, including, but not limited to, shade, canopy, condition, size,
aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the tree(s) to be removed and by
using the species and location criteria in the most recent published appraisal guide
by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Replacement trees shall meet
the following minimum size requirements unless otherwise determined by the
City Forester:
(a) Canopy Shade Trees: 32.00" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(b) Ornamental Trees: 2.50" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
(c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
(2) Trees that meet one (1) or more of the following removal criteria shall be exempt
from the requirements of this subsection unless they meet mitigation requirements
provided in paragraph 3.4.1(E)(1) of this Code:
. . .
(c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches DBH and Russian-olive or ash
(Fraxinus species) less than eight (8) inches DBH;
(d) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm, and ash (all Fraxinus species) of wild or
volunteer origin, such as those that have sprouted from seed along fence
lines, near structures or in other unsuitable locations;
(e) Russian-olive, and Siberian elm determined by the City Forester to be in
poor condition.
. . .
(G) Tree Protection Specifications. The following tree protection specifications shallould be
followed to the maximum extent feasible for all projects with protected existing trees.
-8-
Tree protection methods shall be delineated on the demolition plans and development
plans.
. . .
(2) All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry
Division standards.
(3) Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected
existing trees with such barriers to be of orange construction or chain link fencing
a minimum of four (4) feet in height, secured with metal T-posts, no closer than
six (6) feet from the trunk or one-half (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater.
Concrete blankets, or equivalent padding material, wrapped around the tree
trunk(s) is recommended and adequate for added protection during construction.
There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill
within the fenced tree protection zone. A tree protection plan must be submitted to
and approved by the City Forester prior to any development occurring on the
development site.
. . .
(7) The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground fixture requiring
excavation deeper than six (6) inches shall be accomplished by boring under the
root system of protected existing trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24)
inches. The auger distance is established from the face of the tree (outer bark) and
is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as described in the chart below. Low
pressure hydro excavation, air spading or hand digging are additional
tools/practices that will help reduce impact to the tree(s) root system when
excavating at depths of twenty-four (24) inches or less. Refer to the Critical Root
Zone (CRZ) diagram, Figure 2, for root protection guidelines. The CRZ shall be
incorporated into and shown on development plans for all existing trees to be
preserved.
Tree Diameter at Breast
Height (inches)
Auger Distance From
Face of Tree (feet)
0-2 1
3-4 2
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
Over 19 15
Figure 2
-9-
Critical Root Zone Diagram
(H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements. In approving
the required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to determine the
optimum placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan elements such as
trees, vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing, based on the following
criteria:
. . .
(4) creating visual interest year-round;
. . .
(I) Landscape Materials, Maintenance and Replacement.
. . .
(8) Restricted Species. City Forestry Division shall provide a list of specified tree
species that shall not be planted within the limits of development and adjoining
street right-of-way. For example, no ash trees (Fraxinus species) shall be planted
due to the anticipated impacts of the emerald ash borer.
-10-
(9) Prohibited species. For prohibited species reference Chapter 27, Article II,
Division 1, Sec. 27-18 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
. . .
Section 7. That Section 3.2.1(K) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(K) Utilities and Traffic. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. The
following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common
tree/utility and traffic control device separations. Exceptions to these requirements may
occur where utilities or traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated
locations, as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device separations
shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street trees.
(1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet between
ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 23.)
Figure 23
Tree/Streetlight Separations
(2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic control signs
and devicesMinimum of fifty (50) feet between street trees and stop/yield signs
and traffic signals.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 3.2.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.2.4 Site Lighting
-11-
. . .
(D) Design Standards. The lighting plan shall meet the following design standards:
. . .
(5) Light sources must minimize contrast with the light produced by
surrounding uses, and must produce an unobtrusive degree of brightness
in both illumination levels and color rendition. Incandescent and high-
pressure sodium light sources all can provide adequate illumination with
low contrast and brightness and are permitted light sources.
(11) All lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of
no greater than three thousand (3,000) degrees Kelvin.
Section 9. That Section 3.3.2(E)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(E) Required Improvements Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
. . .
(e) Drainage. The construction of stormwater drainage facilities required by the
approved Development Plan Documents must be consistent with the Stormwater
Criteria Manual as it may be modified from time to time. Such stormwater
drainage facility must be verified by an authorized City inspector at the
appropriate phases of construction activities as specified in the Development
Certification Checklist issued by Water Utilities Engineering and available on the
City of Fort Collins website. from the Department, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) Porous Pavers:
(a) Installation must be verified via inspection by an authorized City
inspector at the point of installation of the outlet, underdrain,
geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part in the design
detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents, and sub-base
course.
(b) Installation of this facility must be verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pavers
and joint fill material.
(2) Bioretention Cells, Rain Gardens, and/or Sand Filters:
-12-
(a) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the outlet,
underdrain and geomembrane layer, if included in whole or in part
in the design detail set forth in the Development Plan Documents,
and base course.
(b) Installation of this facility was verified via inspection by an
authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the pea
gravel course and sand or growing media layer course.
(3) Extended Detention Basins: Installation of this facility was verified via
inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point of installation of the
water quality control box(es).
(4) Underground Treatment: Installation of this facility was verified via
inspection by an authorized City inspector at the point at which the feature
is installed but not buried.
In the event of non-compliance, the City shall have the option to withhold
building permits and/or certificates of occupancy or use any other legal remedy
that may be provided in the City Code, the Land Use Code and/or the
Development Agreement, as determined appropriate to ensure that the Developer
properly installs all privately owned stormwater improvements associated with
the development as specified in the Development Plan Documents.
In addition, a “Drainage Certification” prepared by a Professional Engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado must be provided. The “Certification” must
confirm to the City that all stormwater drainage facilities required to serve the
property have been constructed in conformance with the approved Development
Plan Documents so as to protect downstream property and the quality of
Stormwater runoff from the property to comply with the City’s Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System permit. Such certification must be in the form
required by the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual and Construction Standards.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 3.3.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.3.5 - Engineering Design Standards
The project must comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the
following services as certified by the appropriate agency or variances must be granted by such
agency:
• water supply
• sanitary sewer
-13-
• mass transit
• fire protection
• flood hazard areas
• telephone
• walks/bikeways
• irrigation companies
• electricity
• natural gas
• storm drainage
• cable television
• streets/pedestrians
• broadband/fiber optic
Section 11. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
. . .
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary
of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the
applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and
reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the
natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is
within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the
site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to
the City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional
qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project
development plan application for all or any portion of a property, a
comprehensive ecological characterization study of the entire property
must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for
review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of
this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in
subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth
in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall
describe, without limitation, the following:
-14-
. . .
(e) the pattern, species and location of all non-native trees and any
significant non-native trees, including Siberian elm and Russian
olive trees, as described in paragraph 3.2.1(F)(1) of this Code, and
non-native vegetation that contribute to the site's ecological,
shade, canopy, aesthetic and cooling value;
. . .
Section 12. That Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
. . .
(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and
features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development
that is subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the
ecological character of natural habitats and features from the impacts of the
ongoing activity associated with the development.
(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine
the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the
project site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The
general buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone
table below, but the decision maker may shall reduce or enlarge any
portion of the general buffer zone distance so long as the reduced buffer
complies with, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance
standards set forth below are achieved. To mitigate a reduced portion of
the buffer area, the decision maker may also enlarge any portion of the
general buffer zone distance if necessary to ensure that the buffer
complies with the performance standards set forth below. The buffer
zone performance standards are as follows:
. . .
(c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees
and other significant existing vegetation on the site. that contribute
to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, habitat and
cooling value. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section
3.2.1(F), all trees and vegetation within the Limits of Development
must be preserved or, if necessary, mitigated based on the values
established by the Ecological Characterization Study or the City
Environmental Planner. Such mitigation, if necessary, shall
-15-
include trees, shrubs, grasses, or any combination thereof, and
must be planted within the buffer zone.
. . .
Section 13. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (3) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(D) Relationship of Dwelling to Streets and Parking.
. . .
(3) At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the
outside into each individual single family attached dwelling must be located
within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest emergency access easement
or designated fire lane as measured along paved walkways. Neither an exterior
nor interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement.
Section 14. That Section 3.8.17(A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.8.17 Building Height
. . .
(2) Building Height Measured in Stories. In measuring the height of a building in
stories the following measurement rules shall apply:
(a) A balcony or mezzanine shall be counted as a full story when its floor area
is in excess of one-third (1/3) of the total area of the nearest full floor
directly below it.
(b) No story of a commercial or industrial residential building shall have more
than twenty-five (25) feet from floor to floor.
(c) A maximum vertical height of twelve (12) feet eight (8) inches shall be
permitted for each residential story. This maximum vertical height shall
apply only in the following zone districts: U-E; R-F; R-L; L-M-N; M-M-
N; N-C-L; N-C-M; N-C-B; R-C; C-C-N; N-C; and H-C.
. . .
Section 15. That Section 4.4(B)(3)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (e) to read as follows:
. . .
-16-
(3) The following uses are permitted in the R-L District, subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board:
. . .
(e) Accessory / Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
. . .
Section 16. That Section 4.4(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (4) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(4) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities
must be located on a non-residential parcel and installation must be mitigated by
use of stealth techniques such as steeples, bell towers, grain silos, or similar
means of disguising the appearance of the facilities to mitigate its visual impacts.
Section 17. That Section 4.7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
. . .
2. On a lot that is between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the lot area plus
one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
-17-
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty (30)
percent, plus two hundred fifty (250) square feet for a detached
accessory structure.
. . .
(5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All applicable building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned
upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is
located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space
within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and
basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than
three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the
wall. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a
lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and
there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and
basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than
three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the
wall.
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a
detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lotfor carriage houses, and accessory
buildings containing habitable space, which shall be a maximum of one and one-
half (1½) stories.
(F) Development Standards.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing
-18-
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the
case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed
thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and
does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building
containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar
architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (feet)
from the wall below and does not exceed 25% of the wall length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the
lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
-19-
. . .
Section 18. That Section 4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District
. . .
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Required Lot Area. Minimum lot area shall not be less than the following: five
thousand (5,000) square feet for a single-family or two-family dwelling and six
thousand (6,000) square feet for all other uses.
(2) Allowable Floor Area on Lots.
(a) The allowable floor area shall be as follows:
1. On a lot of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the lot area.
2
2
4’
-20-
2. On a lot that is between four thousand (4,000) square feet and ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, the allowable floor area for single-
family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family
dwellings shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area
plus one thousand (1,000) square feet. On a lot that is between six
thousand (6,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet,
an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet shall be added for
a detached accessory structure.
3. On a lot that is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, the
allowable floor area for single-family dwellings and buildings
accessory to single-family dwellings shall not exceed thirty-five
(35) percent of the lot area, plus two hundred fifty (250) square
feet for a detached accessory building.
4. The allowable floor area for buildings containing permitted uses
other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to
single-family dwellings shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the
lot area.
. . .
(5) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a
building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit.
All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a
street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600)
square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor
area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet
above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(6) Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within the ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and
basement floor area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than
-21-
three (3) feet above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the
wall.
. . .
(E) Dimensional Standards.
. . .
(5) Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the case of a
detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage houses and accessory
buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half
(1 1/2) stories.
(F) Development Standards.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be two (2) stories, except in the
case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed
thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and
does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building
containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar
architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2)
feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25)
percent of the wall length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
-22-
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the
lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
. . .
Section 19. That Section 4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B)
. . .
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space).
Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to
have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory
building to contain habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for
such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder
an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling
unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a
street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600)
square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor
area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet
above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall. Such
accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot,
provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
(4) Accessory Building without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without
water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable
space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600)
square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space)
within ground floor plus that portion of floor area of any second story the building
having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet and basement floor
-23-
area where any exterior basement wall is exposed by more than three (3) feet
above the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall.
. . .
(E) Development Standards.
(1) Building Design.
. . .
(e) Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all
single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories,
except in the case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for
carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(2) Bulk and Massing.
(a) Building Height.
1. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except in the
case of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot for carriage
houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which
shall be limited to one and one-half (1 1/2) stories.
. . .
(b) Eave Height.
1. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at
the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space.
An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed
thirteen (13) feet if set back two (2) feet from the wall below and
does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.
2. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not
exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building
containing no habitable space. An eave of a dormer or similar
architectural feature may exceed ten (10) feet if set back two (2)
feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25)
percent of the wall length.
3. The maximum eave height is measured at the minimum setback
from an interior side-yard lot line and can be increased at a ratio of
-24-
six (6) inches of additional building height for each one (1) foot of
setback from the interior side property line.
34. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the
lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an
imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended
horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if
extended vertically).
. . .
Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c)28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(c) Commercial/Retail Uses:
. . .
28. Enclosed mini-storage facilities, if located at least two hundred
(200) feet from North College Avenue or one hundred fifty (150)
feet from South College Avenue.
. . .
Section 21. That the definition “Neighborhood center” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Neighborhood center shall mean a combination of at least two (2) nonresidentialuses
and an outdoor space, which together provide a focal point and a year-round meeting
place for a Low Density Mixed-Use Nneighborhood as listed in the Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
June, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
-25-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES DIRECTOR VARIANCES TO CERTAIN LAND USE CODE STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have
continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding the
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director determining certain variances to
the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously
recommended that City Council adopt the Land Use Code changes set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
DIVISION 2.10 - VARIANCES (BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS)
. . .
2.10.2 Variances By the Director
(A) The Director shall be authorized to grant the following types of variances, subject
to the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below:
-2-
(1) Setback encroachment of up to ten (10) percent.
(2) Fence height increase of up to one (1) foot.
(3) In the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B zone districts, the allowable floor area
in the rear half of the lot increase of up to ten (10) percent, provided the
amount of increase does not exceed the allowable floor area for the entire
lot.
(4) Building height increase of up to one (1) foot.
(B) The Director may refer any variance described in (A) above to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for review and decision.
2.10.3 Variances By the Zoning Board of Appeals
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be authorized to grant all variances not subject to the
Director’s review in Section 2.10.2(A) and those referred by the Director. The Zoning Board of
Appeals shall follow the variance review procedure in Section 2.10.4 below.
2.10.24 Variance Review Procedures
. . .
(F) Step 6 (Notice): For variances reviewed by the Director or the Zoning Board of
Appeals Ssubsection 2.2.6(A) only applies, except that a variance reviewed by
the Director shall require mailed written notice (14) days prior to the decision
instead of the hearing/meeting date and for variances reviewed by the Director or
the Zoning Board of Appeals, “eight hundred (800) feet” shall be changed to “one
hundred fifty (150) feet,” and for single-family houses in the NCL and NCM zone
districts, eight hundred (800) feet shall be changed to five hundred (500) feet for
variance requests for:
. . .
(G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Not applicable, and in substitution for Section
2.2.7(A), the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the
City Code, shall review, consider and approve, approve with conditions, or deny
applications for variance based on its compliance with all of the standards
contained in Step 8.
Step 7(B)—(G)(1) Zoning Board of Appeals Review Only (Conduct of Public
Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings,
Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and
Plats, Filing with City Clerk): Applicable.
-3-
Step 7(B)—(C) and (E)—(G)(1) Director Review Only (Conduct of Public
Hearing, Order of Proceedings as Public Hearing): Not applicable.
Step 7(D) Director Review Only (Decision and Findings): Applicable and in
substitution thereof, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. The written decision shall
be mailed to the applicant and to the property owners to whom notice was
originally mailed and shall also be posted on the City's website at
www.fcgov.com.
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Director or Zoning Board of Appeals may
grant a variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the
granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor
authorize any change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic
development review; and that:
. . .
(K) Step 11 (Lapse): Any variance whichthat applies to the issuance of a Building
Permit shall expire six (6) months after the date that such variance was granted,
unless all necessary permits have been applied for obtained; provided, however,
that for good cause shown, the Director Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a
longer term if such longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and
circumstances of the case, but in no event shall the period of time for applying for
obtaining all necessary permits under a variance exceed twelve (12) months in
length. One (1) six-month extension may be granted by the Director Zoning
Board of Appeals.
(L) Step 12 (Appeals):
(1) Applicable and in substitution thereof, variances decided by the Director are
appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any such appeal must be initiated
by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within 14 days
after the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing before the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing. The
decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on such appeals shall constitute a final
decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(2) Applicable to variances reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
-4-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
June, A.D. 2019, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2019.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk