HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/02/2018 - POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 16, 2018, OF SECOND READINAgenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 2, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Clay Frickey, City Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Postponement to January 16, 2018, of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2017, Approving the Addition of
Permitted Use Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development
Plan #160018.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is requesting postponement to January 16, 2018, of Council’s consideration of this Ordinance on Second
Reading.
After closing the public hearing at First Reading of this Ordinance on December 19, 2017, City Council
requested staff input regarding the possibility of adding three more conditions to its approval of the Long Pond
Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use (APU) (in addition to those conditions already
included in Ordinance No. 136, 2017, as adopted). It is recommended that Council reopen the public hearing
to consider additional evidence pertaining to additional conditions or other issues specified by Council and
allow comment on such matters by both the applicant and the public. Postponement of Second Reading to
January 16, 2018 will allow time for required notice to be provided for the reopening of the public hearing on
this item. Reopening the public hearing on January 16 will allow new information related only to the three
conditions to be added to the record.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, 2017 approved, with conditions, the
Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications APU, made in conjunction with PDP160018. The APU would allow
the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a
permitted use in the LMN. PDP160018 proposes a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised
as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road. On First Reading, a condition was added that reduced the height of the
facility to 45 feet or less and specified a location for the facility near the existing barn located in the northeast
portion of the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends postponement of consideration of the Ordinance on Second Reading to January 16, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, December 19, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 136, 2017 (PDF)
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 19, 2017
City Council
STAFF
Clay Frickey, City Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2017, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use
Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018.
OR
B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2017, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use
Associated with the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan #160018.
The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Long Pond
Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with
PDP160018. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a
parcel of land located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Wireless
telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the LMN. PDP160018 proposes a 60-foot tall wireless
telecommunications facility disguised as a silo at 2008 Turnberry Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use
request subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall reduce the height of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to 45 feet or
less and move the facility further north to be closer to the outbuildings to assure compatibility with the
area and cannot be changed without an amendment by the approving authority.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PDP160018 proposes the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility at 2008 Turnberry
Road. The applicant proposes to disguise the facility as a silo. 2008 Turnberry Road is 4.512 acres in size and
contains a single-family detached home with a series of outbuildings. The Maple Hill and Story Book
neighborhoods are north and south of the site, with County subdivisions located on the west side of Turnberry
Road. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s land extends to the east property line of 2008 Turnberry Road. Wireless
telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the zone in which this project is located. Ordinance No.
080, 2015, amended the Land Use Code to require City Council approval for Addition of Permitted Use
applications in eight residential zone districts. One of the zone districts in this list is the Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood zone district.
ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 2
Regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also apply to wireless telecommunication
facility applications. The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains regulations that limit how
municipalities can regulate wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities may not ban wireless telecommunication
facilities or zone their city in such a way to de facto ban wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities also may
not deny applications for wireless telecommunication facilities based on health impacts. Northeast Fort Collins
contains few parcels that have zoning that allow wireless telecommunications facilities. The applicant has been
unable to obtain a lease with property owners that have properly zoned land.
Based on direction received from Council at the October 3, 2017 hearing for this item, City staff retained a
consultant, Center for Municipal Solutions, to review this submittal for compliance with the Wireless
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Center for Municipal Solutions provided the City with its initial report on
November 2, 2017. Based on this report, Atlas Tower provided the City and Center for Municipal Solutions with
additional information regarding the coverage gaps this facility expects to fill. Center for Municipal Solutions
provided a supplemental report based on this additional information on December 5, 2017.
Historically, staff has not invoked section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code dealing with architectural compatibility for
wireless telecommunication facilities. Building is a defined term in the Land Use Code. The definition of a building
is as follows:
Building shall mean any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals,
chattels or property of any kind, which is governed by the following characteristics:
(1) is permanently affixed to the land;
(2) has one (1) or more floors and a roof; and
(3) is bounded by either open space or the lot lines of a lot.
Wireless telecommunications facilities do not provide shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since a
wireless telecommunications facility does not meet the definition of a building. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) requires
stealth technology for all wireless facilities and equipment. This addresses compatibility issues by requiring
wireless projects to blend into their surroundings.
Compliance with APU Criteria
In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use
Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows:
A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added
Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment
is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or
contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing
building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use
Code. What this implies is that equipment which facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide.
The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding
structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design,
not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the LMN zone district.
B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other
permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added
Per section 4.5(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the LMN zone is, “… to be a setting for a predominance
of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and
are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose
of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of
housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated
into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 3
a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small
neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual
neighborhood.”
As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the LMN
zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other
uses allowed in the zone. The purpose of the zone also calls for uses that support a neighborhood that are
developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. Since wireless
telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a
neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the LMN zone so
long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. As such, the
proposal satisfies this criterion based on the conditions of approval recommended in the subsequent section of
this AIS.
C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties
The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the
City. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in northeast Fort Collins.
Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up
this claim. In the portion of the City where Verizon has coverage gaps, only six parcels within the city limits have
zoning that would allow wireless telecommunications facilities. All of these parcels are owned by Anheuser-
Busch/InBev. Anheuser-Busch/InBev’s parcels do not make good candidates for a wireless tower to serve the
neighborhoods the provider is looking to serve per the applicant’s project narrative. None of the other parcels in
the applicant’s search ring that are within the city limits have zoning that would allow a wireless
telecommunications facility.
Many properties near the development site, however, are still located in Larimer County. County zoning allows
commercial mobile radio services, synonymous with wireless telecommunication facilities, in all zones subject
to special review. If a development proposal in the County is on a parcel contiguous with the city limits and is
subject to special review, then the property would be required to annex into the City of Fort Collins. Per the
Structure Plan Map, none of the parcels in the applicant’s search ring would enter the City of Fort Collins with
zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility except for one. The property that would enter the
City with appropriate zoning would be the Fort Collins Country Club. Fort Collins Country Club also denied the
applicant’s request for a lease. The county parcels not contiguous to city limits in the applicant’s search ring are
lots containing single-family detached homes, which do not make ideal sites for a cell tower.
Given this scenario, the sites best suited for a cell tower are large sites that will allow the tower to be sited away
from nearby developments to mitigate the size of the tower. The large sites nearby include Maple Hill Park,
Richards Lake Park, the future school site owned by Poudre School District (PSD), the future Northeast
Community Park site, and the legacy farm lots along Turnberry Rd. Neither the City of Fort Collins nor PSD allow
leases for cell towers on their property. The only remaining large lots in the search ring are along Turnberry Rd.,
including the site under consideration with this development application. Given the FCC’s requirement to allow
cell towers, the proposed development site is as appropriate a site as any in the applicant’s search ring.
Land Use Code section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into
the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably
feasible. Immediately adjacent to the site on the south is a single-family detached home on a large lot. Maple
Hill sits north of the development site with one parcel separating the development site from Maple Hill. Maple
Hill comprises single-family detached homes, a neighborhood park, open space, and a neighborhood pool. Story
Book lies south of the development site. Similarly to Maple Hill, Story Book comprises single-family detached
homes and open space. Across Turnberry Rd., west of the development site, are a number of County
subdivisions. These County subdivisions comprise small multi-family developments, townhomes, and single-
family detached homes on large lots. PSD owns the land east of the development site. PSD proposes a school
to be located here in the future. Anheuser-Busch/In Bev owns the land east of the PSD site, which is currently
used as an agricultural operation. The development site itself contains a two-story, single-family detached home
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 4
with a variety of out buildings. The out buildings indicate the property was likely used as a farm prior to the area
developing.
The context consists predominantly of one- and two-story residential structures. Few non-residential structures
exist near the development site. Most of the buildings are new construction from the 2000’s with the development
in the County and home immediately to the south containing buildings from various decades. No structure nearby
exceeds 40 feet in height. Given the burgeoning residential areas around the site and the agricultural activities
beyond the surrounding neighborhoods, a silo is an appropriate design. A silo would harken back to the
agricultural roots of the site and could appear integral to the existing site if designed and located properly. The
current design and location of the silo, however, do not appear integral to the site.
Two silos near the development site are emblematic of how silos function on agricultural sites in Fort Collins.
Both silos are 30-40 feet in height and are located near outbuildings. Both silos are constructed out of cement
and feature a flat top. The proposed facility is 60 feet tall and located away from the series of outbuildings on the
development site. The scale of the proposed silo is too tall compared to other, existing silos in the area to be
construed as being part of an active agricultural operation. The location of the silo on the site does not appear
integral to the operation of the site.
Staff proposes two conditions of approval to meet this criterion of the Addition of Permitted Use process:
1. The silo is reduced in height to 45 feet.
2. The silo should be located at the north end of the site close to the existing outbuildings to appear integral
to the site.
These conditions of approval will allow the proposal to meet this criterion of the APU process while also better
meeting other provisions on the Land Use Code. This design and location would also minimize the impact of the
facility on the property immediately south of the site while still keeping the silo interior to the site and thus
minimizing the impact on other neighbors. Staff recommends a 45-foot tall silo to allow for co-location in
accordance with Land Use Code section 3.8.13(B). While a 60-foot tower would allow more co-location
opportunities, a 45-foot tower would be more in scale with the neighborhood and minimize the visual impact of
the tower. At this height, another carrier could locate on the tower while keeping the facility more in scale with
the surrounding neighborhood and other silos nearby.
D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction,
adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development,
than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is
added
Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other
objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health,
safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other
permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. Aesthetically, should the cell tower be designed
and located as recommended per the conditions of approval for Criterion C, the tower will also have no greater
impact than any of the other permitted uses in the LMN zone. A 45-foot tall silo structure located near agricultural
outbuildings will appear akin to other silos near the development site, which satisfies this criterion.
E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area
The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of a suburban, residential community. Just as the two
silos nearby on Vine Dr. do not define the character of that corridor, nor shall the proposed silo define the
character of this neighborhood. The proposed silo, should the conditions of approval to Criterion C be approved,
will recede into the background of the neighborhood and will not define the area, satisfying this requirement.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 5
F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to
which it is added
As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design
of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conditions of approval for Criterion C would keep the proposed tower
in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods and locate the tower appropriately to minimize community impacts
and make the silo appear integral to the operation of the development site. Given the findings of Criterion A and
the recommended conditions of approval for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the other
listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood,
shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information
derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any
significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal
of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application
and after the application has completed the first round of staff review
Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March
30, 2016, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on
May 17, 2017, after the first round of staff review.
H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of
the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code
The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion.
In addition to these criteria, Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) also requires Addition of Permitted Use applications to not be
detrimental to the public good, comply with the standards in Section 3.5.1, and not be specifically listed as a
prohibited use in the zone district. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not detrimental to the
public good. As mentioned earlier, Section 3.5.1 applies to buildings. Wireless telecommunications facilities do
meet the definition of a building and so this standard is not applicable. The LMN zone district does not have any
uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the September 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend denial of
the application. The Board found the application does not meet the APU criteria in Land Use Code Section
1.3.4(C)(1). More specifically, the Board found the proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood and
does not conform with the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone
district.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential
neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal
of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In
compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 30, 2016 at Tavelli
Elementary School. 70 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their
development application with the City on May 25, 2016. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting
on May 17, 2017. 54 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings:
Concern about radio frequency emissions
The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods
A 60-foot tower is too tall and obtrusive
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 6
Concern about traffic from wireless companies servicing the tower
Worried that a cell tower will decrease the value of their home
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report and attachments provided to Planning and Zoning Board, September 14, 2017 (PDF)
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, September 14, 2017 (PDF)
3. Center for Municipal Solutions Report, November 2, 2017 (PDF)
4. Response Narrative from Atlas Tower, November 28, 2017 (PDF)
5. Sherman and Howard Letter, November 30, 2017 (PDF)
6. Center for Municipal Solutions Supplemental Report, December 6, 2017 (PDF)
7. Revised Coverage Maps from Verizon Wireless, November 28, 2017 (PDF)
8. Resident Comments received by 12:00 p.m., December 13, 2017 (PDF)
9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 136, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE LONG POND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #160018
WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #160018 (“PDP#160018”) proposes the placement
of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone
district (“L-M-N zone”) on the parcel located at 2008 Turnberry Road, parcel number 8832005002
(the “Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the L-M-N
zone; and
WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition
of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#160018 for the addition of wireless
telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board
(“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the
decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary
application, PDP#160018; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such
requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting held
prior to the submittal of the development application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting
held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff
review on May 25, 2017; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such
requirement, the proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of
the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the
proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the L-M-N zone, and in
satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited
use in the L-M-N zone; and
WHEREAS, at its September 14, 2017, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU
and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council not approve the APU; and
WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below,
that must be satisfied in order for Council to approve the APU; and
-2-
WHEREAS, the APU was originally scheduled for October 17, 2017, but Council
continued the hearing on October 17 to November 21 to allow City staff time to evaluate the issues
raised in a letter from legal counsel for Verizon Wireless; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the APU applicant Atlas Tower, Council further continued
the hearing on November 13 to December 19, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017, Council held a public hearing on the APU at which
the APU applicant, members of the public, and City staff presented Council with evidence,
testimony and argument.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings
contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on December 19, 2017, at
which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and argument,
and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU, hereby approves the requested APU
to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in
the L-M-N zone.
Section 3. That the Council imposes the following condition or conditions of approval:
(1) The addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on the Parcel
is conditional upon the approval of PDP#160018. Upon a final decision to deny
PDP#160018 and the conclusion of any related appeals and subsequent action, if
PDP#160018 is ultimately denied, the approval of the APU granted herein shall
automatically terminate and shall thereafter be null and void.
(2) To satisfy the requirement set forth in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1), the wireless
telecommunications facility shall:
(a) Be 45 feet or less in height; and
(b) Be located further north than proposed in order to be closer to the existing
outbuildings on the Parcel and such location shall not be changed without an approved
amendment to PDP#160018 and approval of a new addition of permitted use pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(F) if required pursuant to Section 1.3.4(F).
Section 4. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was
provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, and in consideration of the
conditions of approval imposed in above Section 3, makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
-3-
(1) The APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the L-M-N zone.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the L-M-N zone and the other
permitted uses in the L-M-N zone.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic
generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or
quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the L-M-N zone.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the L-M-N zone
district.
(g) The LUC requirement for two neighborhood meetings regarding the APU was
fulfilled with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development
application on March 30, 2016, and the second meeting held after submittal of the
development application and completion of the first round of staff review on May 25,
2017.
(h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the
City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City
Code.
(2) The APU is not detrimental to the public good;
(3) The APU is in compliance with the applicable requirements and criteria contained in
LUC Section 3.5.1; and
(4) The APU is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the L-M-N zone.
Section 5. That the Council’s approval of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the
development proposal described in PDP#160018 and the associated APU request, the conditions
of approval set forth in above Section 3, the testimony and evidence presented at the December
19, 2017, APU hearing, and the P&Z recommendation and hearing record. Unless otherwise
specified as a condition of approval of the APU, any changes to the use or to its location, size, and
design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact
-4-
upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use under the
LUC.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of
December, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of January, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk