HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingDRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.3.1 - Establishment of Zone Districts
In order to carry out the purposes of this Code, the City is hereby divided into the following zone districts:
Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
Urban Estate District (U-E)
Residential Foothills District (R-F)
Low Density Residential District (R-L)
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B)
High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N)
Transition District (T)
Public Open Lands District (P-O-L)
River Conservation District (R-C)
Downtown District (D)
River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R)
Community Commercial District (C-C)
Service Commercial District (C-S)
Community Commercial - Poudre River District (C-C-R)
General Commercial District (C-G)
Community Commercial - North College District (C-C-N)
Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C)
Limited Commercial District (C-L)
Harmony Corridor District (H-C)
Employment District (E)
Industrial District (I)
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD)
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses
(A) Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the
approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that
otherwise would not permit such a use. Under this process, an applicant may submit a plan that does
not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level
of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is
intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels
with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration
of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property. For residential neighborhoods, land use flexibility shall be balanced
with the existing residential character. Projects are expected to continue to meet the objectives of
any applicable sub-area plan and City Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration
among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. The Addition of Permitted Use
process may add a use or uses to the zone district underlying a PUD Overlay but may not be utilized
to add a use or uses to any PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district.
(B) Applicability. This Section is applicable only under the following circumstances:
(1) Where the proposed use is not listed as a permitted use in any zone district, does not fall within
any existing use classification and is proposed as being appropriate to be added to the
permitted uses in the zone district. If approved under this Section, such use shall be considered
for inclusion into the zone district pursuant to Division 2.9; or
(2) Where the proposed use is listed as a permitted use in one (1) or more zone district(s) and is
proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development
plan.
(C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to
addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City
Council respectively:
(1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application"
for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in
subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for
uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not
apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the
Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The
Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms
to all of the following criteria:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(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.
(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 zone district to which it is added.
(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 zone district to which it is
added and with any uses permitted in a PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(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.
(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) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project not
located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply
for approval of an addition of permitted use for uses described in subsection (B)(2) to be
determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board may add a
proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8)
criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be
in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not
specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located.
The addition of a permitted use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project and shall
not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below.
(3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project located, in whole or
in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application for the approval of an addition
of permitted use shall be determined by the City Council after a Planning and Zoning Board
recommendation on the addition of permitted use. The Planning and Zoning Board shall remain
the decision maker on the primary application.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use
described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use
conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning
Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection
(B)(2) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight
(8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3)
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and
(4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed
site is located. The Planning and Zoning Board shall consider only the requirements set
forth in this subsection in making a recommendation on the addition of permitted use and
shall follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established for zonings and
rezonings of areas of no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in
Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code.
(b) In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and in determining
whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council shall follow the notice
requirements for Council action that are established for zonings and rezonings of areas of
no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in Section 2.9.4 of this Land
Use Code and shall follow the applicable hearing procedures established by the City
Council by resolution for such hearings. In determining the addition of permitted use, the
City Council shall consider only the requirements set forth in subsection (c) below.
(c) In deciding the addition of permitted use application for uses described in subsection
(B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation,
may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use conforms to all of
the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In deciding the addition of permitted use
application for uses described in subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council
specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in
subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not
specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
located. The City Council's action on the addition of permitted use shall be by ordinance.
The addition of a permitted use by City Council shall be specific to the proposed project
and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D). The City Council's
decision on the addition of permitted use shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be
subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code
Article 2, Division 2.13.
(d) If the addition of permitted use is denied, any primary application that has been approved
by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon the City Council's approval of an
additional permitted use under this Section shall be automatically terminated and made null
if such condition is not met; and any pending appeal of such conditional approval shall also
be automatically terminated if such condition is not met, whereupon the appellant shall be
promptly refunded any appeal fee that was paid to the City.
(D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has been added by the
Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above,
such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Code under Division 2.9.
If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the
appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text
of this Code, at the first convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9.
If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone
district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for
only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under subsection (C)(1) above.
(E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in
accordance with this Section, the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any
zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in
subsection (G), may impose such conditions and requirements, including, but not limited to,
conditions related to the location, size and design on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1)
accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its
adopted components and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and
impacts upon the public and neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses.
(F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section are specific to the
subject addition of permitted use application. 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
upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use.
(G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City Council shall make all
final determinations regarding any addition of permitted use under subsection (C)(3) with respect to a
project located, in whole or in part, in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text
In construing the language of this Land Use Code, the rules set forth in Section 1-2 of the City Code and
this Section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of
the Council as expressed in this Land Use Code or in City Plan Principles and Policies. The rules of
construction and definitions set forth herein shall not be applied to any express provisions excluding such
construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. In the event of a
conflict between these rules of construction and the rules of construction established in Section 1-2 of the
City Code, these rules shall control.
(A) Generally. All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in the Land Use Code shall
be so construed in order that the intent and meaning of the Council may be fully carried out.
Terms used in the Land Use Code, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall have the
meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms.
In the interpretation and application of any provision of the Land Use Code, such provision
shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of the Land
Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of
the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be
deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less
stringent.
The definitions are intended to be generally construed within the context of the Land Use
Code, except as shall be specified by the term itself within a given context for a select
section of the Land Use Code.
(B) Text. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of the Land Use Code
and any figure or diagram, the text shall control.
(C) Conjunctive/Disjunctive. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, the following words
shall be interpreted as follows:
(1) "And" indicates that all connected words or provisions apply.
(2) "Or" or "and/or" indicates that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in
any combination.
(3) "Either...or" indicates that the connected words or provisions apply singly but not in
combination.
(D) Day. The word "day" shall mean a calendar day.
(E) Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the Director or some other
City officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed
as authorizing the Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize
professional-level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the
provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development applications eligible for
Type 1 review, in addition to or in substitution for delegation to subordinates as above
authorized, the Director may engage the services of an attorney with experience in land use
matters.
(F) Exhibits. Any exhibit to this Code which is taken from another regulation of the City shall be
automatically amended upon the making of any amendment to the document of origin, and the
Director shall promptly replace such exhibit with the new amended exhibit.
(G) Include. The word "including," "includes," "such as," "additional" or "supplemental" is illustrative
and is not intended as an exhaustive listing, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(H) Headings. Article, division, section and subsection headings contained in the Land Use Code
are for convenience only and do not govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope,
meaning or intent of any portion of the Land Use Code.
(I) Shall, May, Should. The word "shall," "will" or "must" is mandatory; "may" is permissive,
"should" is suggestive but not mandatory.
(J) Week. The word "week" shall be construed to mean seven (7) calendar days.
(K) Written or In Writing. The term "written" or "in writing" shall be construed to include any
representation of words, letters or figures whether by printing or other form or method of writing.
(L) Year. The word "year" shall mean a calendar year, unless a fiscal year is indicated or three
hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days is indicated.
(M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References . In applying the provisions of
Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Code, the term "project development plan" shall be
deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term "final plan" shall be deemed to
mean a complete development plan. This Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with
respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.1.1 - Decision Maker and Administrative Bodies
The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Community Planning and
Environmental Services Director (the "Director") are frequently referenced in this Land Use Code.
Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of the City Code for descriptions of these and other decision
makers and administrative bodies, and their powers, duties, membership qualifications and related
matters.
The Director or the Planning and Zoning Board will consider, review and decide all development
applications for permitted uses (overall development plans, PUD Overlays 640 acres or less, basic
development review plans, project development plans and final plans) according to the provisions of this
Land Use Code. For those development applications subject to basic development review, the Director
(or the Director's subordinate) is the designated decision maker. For those development applications
subject to administrative review (sometimes referred to as "Type 1 review"), the Director is the designated
decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(1)). For those development applications subject to P&Z review
(sometimes referred to as "Type 2 review"), the Planning and Zoning Board is the designated decision
maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(2)). For PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, the City Council is the
designated decision maker after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. The permitted
use list for a particular zone district and the development review procedure "steps" for a particular
development application identifies which review, Type 1 or Type 2, will apply. For building permit
applications, the Building and Zoning Director is the decision maker (see Section 2.7.3). (See "Overview
of Development Review Procedures," Section 2.1.2, below, for a further description of different levels of
review.)
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.1.2 - Overview of Development Review Procedures
This article establishes the development review procedures for different types of development
applications and building permits within the city.
(A) Where is the project located? An applicant must first locate the proposed project on the
Zoning Map. Once the proposed project has been located, the applicable zone district must be
identified from the Zoning Map and legend. Then, by referring to Article 4, District Standards, of
this Land Use Code, the applicant will find the district standards which apply to the zone district
in which the proposed project is located. The city's staff is available to assist applicants in this
regard.
(B) What uses are proposed? Next, an applicant must identify which uses will be included in the
proposed project. If all of the applicant's proposed uses are listed as permitted uses in the
applicable zone district for the project, then the applicant is ready to proceed with a
development application for a permitted use. If any of the applicant's proposed uses are not
listed as permitted uses in the applicable zone district for the project, then the applicant must
either eliminate the nonpermitted uses from his or her proposal, seek the addition of a new
permitted use pursuant to Section 1.3.4, or seek a text amendment to this Land Use Code or a
rezoning amendment to the Zoning Map pursuant to Division 2.9, or seek approval of a PUD
Overlay pursuant to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29. Any use not listed as a permitted use in the
applicable zone district is deemed a prohibited use in that zone district, unless it has been
permitted pursuant to Section 1.3.4 for a particular development application or permitted as part
of an approved PUD Overlay. Again, the city's staff will be available to assist applicants with
their understanding of the zone districts and permitted uses.
(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 prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development plans,
PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans are the four three (3) types of
development applications for permitted uses. Each successive development application for a
development proposal must build upon the previously approved development application 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 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.
(D) Who reviews the development application? Once an applicant has determined the type of
development application to be submitted, he or she must determine the appropriate level of
development review required for the development application. To make this determination, the
applicant must refer to the provisions of the applicable zone district in Article 4 and the
provisions pertaining to the appropriate development application. These provisions will
determine whether the permitted uses and the development application are subject to basic
development review, administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or Planning and Zoning Board
review ("Type 2 review"), or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays greater than 640
acres. Identification of the required level of development review will, in turn, determine which
decision maker, the Director in the case of administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or the
Planning and Zoning Board in the case of Planning and Zoning Board review ("Type 2 review"),
or the City Council for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, will review and make the final
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
decision on the development application. When a development application contains both Type 1
and Type 2 uses, it will be processed as a Type 2 review.
(E) How will the development application be processed? The review of overall development
plans, PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans will each generally follow the
same procedural "steps" regardless of the level of review (administrative review or Planning and
Zoning Board review). The common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2
establish a twelve-step process equally applicable to all overall development plans, project
development plans and final plans.
The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures are the same for each
type of development application, whether subject to basic development review, administrative
review, or Planning and Zoning Board review, or City Council review in the case of PUD
Overlays greater than 640 acres unless an exception to the common development review
procedures is expressly called for in the particular development application requirements of this
Land Use Code. In other words, each overall development plan, each project development plan
and each final plan will be subject to the twelve-step common procedure. The twelve (12) steps
include: (1) conceptual review; (2) neighborhood meeting; (3) development application
submittal; (4) determination of sufficiency; (5) staff report; (6) notice; (7) public hearing; (8)
standards; (9) conditions of approval; (10) amendments; (11) lapse; and (12) appeals.
However, Step 1, conceptual review, applies only to the initial development application submittal
for a development project (i.e., overall development plan or PUD Overlay when required, or
project development plan when neither an overall development plan nor a PUD Overlay is not
required). Subsequent development applications for the same development project are not
subject to Step 1, conceptual review.
Moreover, Step 2, neighborhood meeting, applies only to certain development applications
subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review. Step 2, neighborhood meeting,
does not apply to development applications subject to basic development review or
administrative review. Step 3, application submittal requirements, applies to all development
applications. Applicants shall submit items and documents in accordance with a master list of
submittal requirements as established by the City Manager. Overall development plans must
comply with only certain identified items on the master list, while PUD Overlays, project
development plans must include different items from the master list, and final plans must
include different items from the master listas well. This master list is intended to assure
consistency among submittals by using a "building block" approach, with each successive
development application building upon the previous one for that project. City staff is available to
discuss the common procedures with the applicant.
(F) What if the development proposal doesn't fit into one of the types of development
applications discussed above? In addition to the four three (3) development applications for
permitted uses, the applicant may seek approval for other types of development applications,
including development applications for a modification of standards (Division 2.8), an
amendment to the text of the Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map (Division 2.9), a hardship
variance (Division 2.10), an appeal of an administrative decision (Division 2.11) or other
requests. These other types of development applications will be reviewed according to
applicable steps in the common development review procedures.
(G) Is a building permit required? The next step after approval of a final plan is to apply for a
Building Permit. Most construction requires a Building Permit. This is a distinct and separate
process from a development application. The twelve (12) steps of the common development
review procedures must be followed for the Building Permit process. Procedures and
requirements for submitting a Building Permit application are described in Division 2.7.
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council regarding complex
development proposals? If an application for approval of a development plan also entails City
Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
some other kind of formal action by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this
Land Use Code, and if a land development or renewal project is determined by the City
Manager to be of community-wide impact, the applicant for such approval may request that the
City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City
Council regarding the applicant's overall proposal in order to assist the developer in determining
whether to file a development application or annexation petition. All pre-application hearings
scheduled by the City Manager under this provision will be held in accordance with the
provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review
Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted
subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the
date of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's
estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs
will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City Council
may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion or
recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the proposal does not bind or
otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to
the proposal. Only one (1) such hearing may be requested.
(IH) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record" about a development plan
prior to the decision makers' formal review of the application? No. Development plans
must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and
the City's decision whether to approve or deny an application must be based on the criteria
established herein and on the information provided at the hearings held on the application. In
order to afford all persons who may be affected by the review and approval of a development
plan an opportunity to respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the plan will
be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision makers, decision makers who
intend to participate in the decisions should avoid communications with the applicant or other
members of the public about the plan prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.1.3 - Types of Development Applications
(A) Applicability. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and
approved through the following development applications: a basic development review; or through a
project development plan (Division 2.4), then through a final plan (Division 2.5), then through a
development construction permit (Division 2.6) and then through a building permit review (Division
2.7). 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 prior to or concurrently
with the project development plan. A PUD Master Plan associated with a PUD Overlay may be
substituted for an overall development plan (Divisions 2.15 and 4.29). Each successive development
application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved development
application 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).
Permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses subject to Planning and Zoning
Board review listed in the applicable zone district set forth in Article 4, District Standards, shall be
processed through an overall development plan, a project development plan or a final plan. If any
use not listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is included in a development
application, it may also be processed as an overall development plan, project development plan or
final plan, if such proposed use has been approved, or is concurrently submitted for approval, in
accordance with the requirements for an amendment to the text of this Land Use Code and/or the
Zoning Map, Division 2.9, or in accordance with the requirements for the addition of a permitted use
under Section 1.3.4. Development applications for permitted uses which seek to modify any
standards contained in the General Development Standards in Article 3, or the District Standards in
Article 4, shall be submitted by the applicant and processed as a modification of standards under
Division 2.8. Hardship variances to standards contained in Article 3, General Development
Standards, or Article 4, District Standards, shall be processed as hardship variances by the Zoning
Board of Appeals pursuant to Division 2.10. Appeals of administrative/staff decisions shall be
according to Division 2.11. PUD overlays shall be processed pursuant to Divisions 2.15, 4.29.
(B) Overall Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the overall development plan is to establish general
planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with
multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent
submittals. Approval of an overall development plan does not establish any vested right to
develop property in accordance with the plan.
(2) Applicability. An overall development plan shall be required for any property which is intended
to be developed over time in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals.
Refer to Division 2.3 for specific requirements for overall development plans.
(C) Project Development Plan and Plat.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The project development plan shall contain a general description of the
uses of land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural elevations and buildings, and it
shall include the project development plan and plat (when such plat is required pursuant to
Section 3.3.1 of this Code). Approval of a project development plan does not establish any
vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan.
(2) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review meeting and after the Director has
made written comments and after a neighborhood meeting has been held (if necessary), an
application for project development plan review may be filed with the Director. If the project is to
be developed over time in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an
overall development plan shall also be required. Refer to Division 2.4 for specific requirements
for project development plans.
(D) Final Plan and Plat.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(1) Purpose and Effect. The final plan is the site specific development plan which describes and
establishes the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. The final
plan shall include the final subdivision plat (when such plat is required pursuant to Section 3.3.1
of this Code), and if required by this Code or otherwise determined by the Director to be
relevant or necessary, the plan shall also include the development agreement and utility plan
and shall require detailed engineering and design review and approval. Building permits may be
issued by the Building and Zoning Director only pursuant to an approved final plan or other site
specific development plan, subject to the provisions of Division 2.8.
(2) Applicability. Application for a final plan may be made only after approval by the appropriate
decision maker (Director for Type 1 review, or Planning and Zoning Board for Type 2 review) of
a project development plan, unless the project development and final plans have been
consolidated pursuant to Section 2.2.3(B). An approved final plan shall be required for any
property which is intended to be developed. No development shall be allowed to develop or
otherwise be approved or permitted without an approved final plan. Refer to Division 2.5 for
specific requirements for final plans.
(E) Site Plan Advisory Review.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and
approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character and extent of
improvements to parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public
and charter schools, the review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed
school facility conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Applicability. A Site Plan Advisory Review shall be applied to any public building or structure.
For a public or charter school, the Planning and Zoning Board shall review a complete Site Plan
Advisory Review application within thirty (30) days (or such later time as may be agreed to in
writing by the applicant) of receipt of such application under Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. For Site
Plan Advisory Review applications under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., such applications shall be
reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Board within sixty (60) days
following receipt of a complete application.
Enlargements or expansions of public buildings, structures, schools and charter schools are
exempt from the Site Plan Advisory review process if:
(a) The change results in a size increase of less than twenty-five (25) percent of the existing
building, structure or facility being enlarged, whether it be a principal or accessory use; and
(b) The enlargement or expansion does not change the character of the building or facility.
Application for a Site Plan Advisory Review is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning
Board under the requirements contained in Division 2.16 of this Code.
(F) PUD Overlay.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the PUD Overlay is to provide an avenue for property
owners with larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design
by means of customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code
development standards. In return for such flexibility, significant public benefits not available
through traditional development procedures must be provided by the development. A PUD
Master Plan is the written document associated with a PUD Overlay and the PUD Master Plan
sets forth the general development plan and the customized uses, densities, and Land Use
Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. An approved PUD Overlay overlays
the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district
requirements.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(2) Applicability. A PUD Overlay is available to properties or collections of contiguous properties
50 acres or greater in size. Refer to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 for specific requirements and
review of PUD Overlays and PUD Master Plans.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.1.6 Optional Pre-Application Review
(A) Optional City Council Pre-Application Review of Complex Development
Proposals:
(1) A potential applicant for development other than a PUD Overlay may
request that the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving
preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the overall proposal
in order to assist the proposed applicant in determining whether to file a
development application or annexation petition. Only one (1) pre-
application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (A) may be requested. The
following criteria must be satisfied for such a hearing to be held:
(a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set
forth in Article 2, Division 2.2.
(b) The proposed application for approval of a development plan must
require City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment
to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action
by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use
Code
(c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed
development will have a community-wide impact.
(B) Optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review:
This optional review is available to potential PUD applicants that have not
begun any step of the Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Such review
is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual
information to the Planning and Zoning Board for PUD Overlays between
50 and 640 acres in size, or to City Council for PUD Overlays greater than
640 acres in size, regarding the proposed development including how site
constraints will be addressed and issues of controversy or opportunities
related to the development. Applicants participating in such review
procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend
to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from
staff and affected property owners. In order for a pre-application hearing
to be held, the Director must determine in writing that the proposed PUD
will have a community-wide impact. Only one (1) pre-application hearing
pursuant to this Subsection (B) may be requested.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
(C) Notice and Hearing Procedure. All preapplication hearings under above
Subsections (A) or (B) this provision will be held in accordance with the
provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development
Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step
(6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less
than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting
the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing
notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded
to the applicant.
(D) Input Non-Binding, Record. The Planning and Zoning Board or City Council as
applicable pursuant to above Subsections (A) or (B) may, but shall not be
required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Planning and Zoning Board or City Council
member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City
decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal.
All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of the record
of any subsequent development review related to all or part of the property that
was the subject of the optional review.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use
(A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development
plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan,
any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of
use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2),
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be
authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, sSuch minor
amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development
plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably
feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the
PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such
standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and are consistent with the
existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of
the following:
(1) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which
was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any
change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a
use-by-right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the
original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the
change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular
request for change or change of use:
(a) Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units,
except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to
a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling
units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less;
(b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential
land use or structure that does not change the character of the project;
(c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the
requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project;
(d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development;
(e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking
lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the
approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan;
(f) Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the
character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the
requirements of this Code; and
(g) In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being brought into
compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to
below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards
contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this
Code.
(2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which
was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or
as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law) or City Council review
of a PUD Overlay, or any change of use of any property that was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following
criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use:
(a) Results in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of
dwelling units;
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential
land use or structure that does not change the character of the project;
(c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the
requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project;
(d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development; and
(e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking
lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the
approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan.
(3) Waiver of Development Standards for Changes of Use.
(a) Applicability. The procedure and standards contained in this Section shall apply only to
changes of use reviewed pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) of this Code.
(b) Purpose. In order for a change of use to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), the
change of use must result in the site being brought into compliance with all applicable
general development and zone district standards to the extent reasonably feasible. The
purpose of this Section is to allow certain changes of use that do not comply with all
general development standards to the extent reasonably feasible to be granted pursuant to
Section 2.2.10(A) in order to:
1. Foster the economic feasibility for the use, maintenance and improvement of certain
legally constructed buildings and sites which do not comply with certain Land Use
Code General Development Standards provided that:
a. Existing blight conditions have been ameliorated; and
b. Public and private improvements are made that address essential health and life
safety issues that are present on-site.
2. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, uses and sites.
(c) Review by Director. As part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) for a
proposed change of use, the Director may waive, or waive with conditions, any of the
development standards set forth in subsection (d) below. In order for the Director to waive,
or waive with conditions, any such development standard, the Director must find that such
waiver or waiver with conditions would not be detrimental to the public good and that each
of the following is satisfied:
1. The site for which the waiver or waiver with conditions is granted satisfies the policies
of the applicable Council adopted subarea, corridor or neighborhood plan within which
the site is located;
2. The proposed use will function without significant adverse impact upon adjacent
properties and the district within which it is located in consideration of the waiver or
waiver with conditions;
3. Existing blight conditions on the site are addressed through site clean-up,
maintenance, screening, landscaping or some combination thereof; and
4. The site design addresses essential health and public safety concerns found on the
site.
(d) Eligible Development Standards. The Director may grant a waiver or waiver with
conditions for the following general development standards:
1. Sections 3.2.1(4), (5) and (6) related to Parking Lot Perimeter and Interior
Landscaping, and connecting walkways.
2. Section 3.2.2(M) Landscaping Coverage.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
3. Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting, except compliance with minimum footcandle levels
described in 3.2.4(C).
4. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosure design.
5. Section 3.3.5 Engineering Design standards related to water quality standard,
including Low Impact Development.
(4) Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change
of use to the decision maker who approved the development plan proposed to be
amendedAdministrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor
amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of
the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as
required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in
Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located.
The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans
approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for
the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so
referred, the decision maker’s decisionof the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board
shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or 2.15 as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. City
Council approval of a minor amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution.
(5) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions
or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site
specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the
Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the
final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the
appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final
decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A).
(1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall
Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, or any site specific
development plan, and changes of use that are not determined by the Director to be minor
amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above,
shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or
site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land
prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses
proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for
the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply
with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development
plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and
processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which
amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site
specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures
established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. City Council approval of
a major amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. Any partial or total
abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this
Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the
adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a
Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to
the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the
land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the
zone district in which the land is located.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(2) Appeals. Appeals of decisions for approval, approval with conditions or denial of major
amendments, or abandonment, of any approved development plan or site specific development
plan shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(C) Additional Criteria. In addition to the criteria established in (A) and (B) above, the criteria established
in subsection 2.1.4(C) shall guide the decision maker in determining whether to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application for partial or total abandonment.
(D) Parkway Landscaping Amendments. Amendments to parkway landscaping in any approved
development plan may be approved, approved with conditions or denied administratively by the
Director. No public hearing need be held on an application for a parkway landscaping amendment.
Such amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so
amended, continues to comply with the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards, Appendix C, Section 6.1
in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Appeals of the decision of the Director
regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of parkway landscaping amendments of
any approved development plan shall be made in accordance with paragraph (A)(4) of this Section.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse
(A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and approval of a
development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the
applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond
from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval
of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to
address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is
not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and
become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing one-hundred-
eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length,
and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A)
shall apply to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications
which are, or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the
adoption of this Code. On transfer of ownership of any real property that is the subject of a pending
application, whether in whole or in part, such transfer shall bar a new owner or transferee from taking
further action on such application unless, prior to taking any action, the new owner provides
evidence satisfactory to the Director that the transferor of such property intended that all rights of the
owner under the pending application be assigned to the transferee.
(B) Overall Development Plan. There is no time limit for action on an overall development plan. Because
an overall development plan is only conceptual in nature, no vested rights shall ever attach to an
overall development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, project development
plans or final plans for portions of an overall development plan shall not create vested rights for
those portions of the overall development plan which have not received such approvals and have not
been completed.
(C) PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan shall be eligible for a vested property right solely with
respect to uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards for which variances have
been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), as all are set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan, and an
approved PUD Master Plan shall be considered a site specific development plan solely for the purpose of
acquiring such vested property right.
(1) Specification of Uses, Densities, Development Standards, and Engineering Standards. The
application for a PUD Master Plan shall specify the uses, densities, development standards,
and Engineering Standards granted variances pursuant to Section 4.29(L), for which the
applicant is requesting a vested property right. Such uses, densities, and development
standards may include those granted modifications pursuant to Section 4.29 and uses,
densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code which are applicable to
the PUD Master Plan.
(2) Term of Vested Right. The term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years
unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, or (b) the City
and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a
period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City if the
Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all phases of
the development and the associated engineering improvements for the development, and only
if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the overall size of
the development and economic cycles and market conditions. Council shall adopt any such
development agreement as a legislative act subject to referendum.
(3) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by
the Director, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to
the public good. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the
original PUD Master Plan decision maker, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been
diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the
extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of
vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the
Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the original PUD
Master Plan decision maker.
(4) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing the PUD Master Plan and stating that a vested
property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City, not later than fourteen (14) days after the
approval of a PUD Master Plan, an extension of an existing vested right, or the legislative
adoption of a development agreement as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or
judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made
within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter.
(5) Minor and Major Amendments. In the event that a minor or major amendment to a PUD Master
Plan is approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10, and such amendment alters or adds
uses, densities, development standards, or Engineering Standards for which variances have
been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), a new vested property right may be created upon the
applicant’s request and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. If the applicant wants the
term of the new vested property right to exceed three years, such extended term must be
approved and legislatively adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection.
(DC) Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and
upon the expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following
appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development
plan within three (3) years unless the project development plan is for a large base industry to be
constructed in phases, in which case the application for approval of a final plan must be submitted
within twenty-five (25) years. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or
any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically lapse and become null
and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing requirement, which extension
may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall ever attach to a project development
plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project
development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan
which have not received such final plan approval and have not been completed.
(ED) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
(1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the recording by the
City with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder of both the Final Plat and the Development
Agreement and upon such recording, a vested property right shall be created pursuant to the
provisions of Article 68 Title 24, C.R.S., and this Section 2.2.11.
(2) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing generally the type and intensity of use approved
and the specific parcel or parcels affected, and stating that a vested property right has been
created or extended, shall be published by the City once, not later than fourteen (14) days after
the approval of any final plan or other site specific development plan in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable
right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication,
whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the approval of a final plan
or other site specific development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and complete all
engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and
storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of time shall
constitute the "term of the vested property right." The foregoing term of the vested property right
shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (4) of
this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which
vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered
into by the City only if the subject development constitutes a "large base industry" as defined in
Article 5, or if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to
complete all engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all
relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development,
economic cycles and market conditions. Any such development agreement shall be adopted as
a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure to undertake and complete such engineering
improvements within the term of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested
property right and shall require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to be
processed as required by this Code. All dedications as contained on the final plat shall remain
valid unless vacated in accordance with law.
(4) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by
the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as
contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the
application for the extension. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all,
only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable
general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as
contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant
has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph
(3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other
extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering
improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship
upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A
request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the
Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence.
The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the
Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board.
(5) Minor Amendments. In the event that minor amendments to a final plan or other site-specific
development plan are approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if
permissible), the effective date of such minor amendments, for purposes of duration of a vested
property right, shall be the date of the approval of the original final plan or other site-specific
development plan.
(6) Major Amendments. The approval of major amendments to a final plan or other site-specific
development plan under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible),
shall create a new vested property right with effective period and term as provided herein,
unless expressly stated otherwise in the decision approving such major amendment.
(7) Planning over old plans. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property
which includes all of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such
new final plan shall cause the automatic expiration of such previously approved site-specific
development plan. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which
includes only a portion of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of
such new final plan shall be deemed to constitute the abandonment of such portion of the
previously approved plan as is covered by such new plan, and shall be reviewed according to
the abandonment criteria contained in subsection 2.1.4(C) and all other applicable criteria of this
Code.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(8) Other provisions unaffected. Approval of a final plan or other site-specific development plan shall
not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any other provisions of this Code pertaining to the
development and use of property.
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall development plan or a
project development plan that has been denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council
upon appeal, or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as
the subject of another overall development plan or project development plan application for a
period of six (6) months from the date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as
applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the new plan includes substantial
changes in land use, residential density and/or nonresidential intensity.
(10) Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create any vested property right
other than such right as is established pursuant to the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S.
In the event of the repeal of said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or
unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the provisions hereof no
longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the waiver of a vested property
right pursuant to mutual agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the
recording of any such agreement with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, any property
right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to be not vested.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures
A project development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the
provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review
Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows:
(A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable, only if the project development plan is not subject to an
overall development plan.
(B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for project
development plans as described in the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the
facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of
the application.
(D) Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable.
(E) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Administrative review (Type 1 review) applies to a project development plan that satisfies
all of the following conditions:
(a) it was submitted after the effective date of this Land Use Code and is subject to the
provisions of this Land Use Code; and
(b) it contains only permitted uses subject to administrative review as listed in the zone
district (set forth in Article 4, District Standards) in which it is located.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to a project development plan
that does not satisfy all of the conditions in (1), above.
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing,
Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of
Decisions and Plats): Applicable.
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General
Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable
District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of
an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be
consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD
Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or
portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be
subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
(I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(K) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(L) Step 1 2 (Appeals): Applicable.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
Development application shall mean any application or request submitted in the
form required by the Land Use Code and shall include only applications for an
overall development plan, a PUD Overlay, a project development plan, a final
plan, a Building Permit, a modification of standards, amendments to the text of
this Code or the Zoning Map, a hardship variance or an appeal from
administrative decisions prescribed in Article 2.
Development application for permitted use shall mean a development
application submitted in the form required by this Code to the City for an overall
development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or a Building Permit,
including only uses described as permitted uses in the applicable zone district. A
PUD Overlay is also considered to be a development application for a permitted
use even though the PUD Overlay may request uses that are not permitted in
the applicable underlying zone district.
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the City for approval
of a permitted use which depicts the details of a proposed development.
Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project development
plan, a final plan, and/or an amendment of any such plan. A PUD Overlay is also
considered to be a development plan even though the PUD Overlay may request
uses that are not permitted in the applicable underlying zone district.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay shall mean an area of land approved for
development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division
2.15. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and
restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for
development of an area within an approved PUD Overlay, which identifies the
general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and
certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan
substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master
Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to vested
property rights regarding specific uses, densities, Land Use Code development
standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to
Section 4.29(L).
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Proposed City of Fort Collins Specific Amendment to the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards Variance Language
1.9.4 Variances and Appeals Processes
A. Variances
Any design that does not conform to these Standards must be approved by the Local
Entity Engineer. Variances from these Standards will be considered administratively on a case-by-
case basis following a written request for a variance prepared by a Professional Engineer and
submitted to the Local Entity Engineer. If the special district, developer, contractor, or utility
responsible to the Local Entity for public improvements desires to design and construct such
improvements in variance to criteria in these standards, such variance(s) shall be identified in a
written attachment to the initial submittal of construction plans to the Local Entity Engineer. The
design submitted for review shall show the variance. To assist with their plan preparation, designers
may submit variance requests, along with sufficient documentation to support the variance, prior to
formal submittal of construction plans for informal advisory consideration. Such advisory
consideration shall not be binding on the Local Entity Engineer, but may help to guide the requestor
in the preparation of plans. Variances may be considered by either of the following two
administrative processes:
a. Variances requested as part of an application for approval of a preliminary plat
only shall be shown on the preliminary plat (or on the preliminary construction
plans) and shall also be specifically substantiated and justified in a letter
addressed to the Local Entity Engineer. In Loveland (city limits only), variances
requested as part of a combined application for approval of a preliminary plat
and preliminary development plan shall be described (complete with technical
justification) in the regulatory procedures section on the preliminary
development plan. In Fort Collins (city limits only), variances may be
processed in conjunction with any development application for a permitted use
as such term is defined in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
b. Variances requested as part of the submittal for approval of final public
improvements construction plans shall be shown in the plans and shall also be
specifically substantiated and justified in a letter addressed to the Local Entity
Engineer. A summary of all approved variances shall be listed in the general
notes on the approved plans.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1
Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Divisions 2.15 and 4.29
Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure
(A) Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more
complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return
for significant public benefits not available through traditional development
procedures.
(B) Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Overlay is available to
properties of 50 acres or greater in size.
(C) Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable to any proposed PUD
Overlay subject to Planning and Zoning Board or City Council review.
If a neighborhood meeting is required at the conceptual planning
stage pursuant to Section 2.2.2, a second neighborhood meeting
shall be required after the PUD Overlay application has been
submitted and the first round of staff review completed.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents
as described in the development application submittal master list for
a PUD Overlay shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director
may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given
the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular
requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or
otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the
application.
(4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to
PUD Overlay applications between 50 and 640 acres;
(2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications
greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2
Board recommendation. City Council approval of a PUD
Overlay shall be by ordinance.
Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of
Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to
Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with
all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District
Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision
on a PUD Overlay between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to City
Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project
Development Plans within PUD Overlays are subject to the
limitations of Section 4.29(J).
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
3
Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
(A) Purpose.
(1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final
Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved
PUD Master Plan.
(2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for
real property within an approved PUD Overlay.
(3) Positions large areas of property for phased development.
(4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to
integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher
design, engineering and construction standards and other
community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under
the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of
adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards.
(5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses,
densities, and applicable development and zone district standards.
(B) Objectives.
(1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas.
(2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD
Overlay must provide public benefits greater than those typically
achieved through the application of a standard zone district,
including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a
particular PUD Master Plan:
(a) Diversification in the use of land;
(b) Innovation in development;
(c) More efficient use of land and energy;
(d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the
development;
(e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and
(f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted
plans and policies.
(3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive
development that takes advantage of site characteristics.
(4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real
property owners within a large area.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
4
(5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from
negative impacts.
(C) Applicability.
(1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50
acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners
authorize their respective property to be included.
(2) An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and
will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to
the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan.
(3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for
an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of
an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for
Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s).
(D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure.
(1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone
district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the
Section 2.15 of the common review procedures.
(2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker
must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria:
(a) The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of
Sections 4.29 (A) and (B);
(b) The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within
the subject property or properties;
(c) The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in
compliance with the principles and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies;
(d) The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in
compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and
services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and
utilities; and
(e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use
Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the
extent such development standards have been modified pursuant
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
5
to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master
Plan.
(E) Permitted Uses.
(1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted
within an approved PUD Overlay.
(2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be
requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of
review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development
Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being
requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies
below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an
additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each
approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the
applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if
it would not be contrary to the public good.
(a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD Overlay
provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles
and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans
and policies; and
(b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions
regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to
water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
(c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the
requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone
district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay.
(d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the
PUD Overlay.
(F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved
PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be
permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited.
(G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
6
(1) Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land
Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified
as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described
in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set
forth in Division 2.8.
(2) The application must enumerate the densities and development
standards proposed to be modified.
(a) The application shall describe the minimum and maximum
densities for permitted residential uses.
(b) The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article
3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development
standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of
each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable
application of the modified standards to Project Development
Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance
with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan.
Modifications under this Section may not be granted for
Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and
variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection
(L).
(3) In order to approve requested density or development standard
modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or
development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria:
(a) The modified density or development standard is consistent
with the purposes, and advance the objectives of, the PUD
Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B);
(b) The modified density or development standard significantly
advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan;
(c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to
achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan;
and
(d) The modified density or development standard is consistent
with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and adopted plans and policies.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
7
(H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are
subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I)
and (J).
(I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment.
(1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in
accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following:
(i) The written request of all of the real property owners
within a PUD Overlay; or
(ii) The City, provided no vested property right approved in
connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect
upon termination.
(b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision
maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination
is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a
public hearing to address the issue.
(c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the
overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone
district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall
control.
(d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination
of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6.
(2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may
be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code
Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following:
(i) The written request of all real property owners within the PUD
Overlay; or
(ii) The written request of the original applicant for the approved
PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal
control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and
(2) The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan
without the consent of other owners of real property within
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
8
the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or
deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or
(iii) The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify,
or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection
with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the
beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right.
(b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or
otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved
amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real
property within the PUD Overlay which:
(i) Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD
Master Plan;
(ii) Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final
Plan; or
(iii) Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time
the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the
City.
(J) Appeals.
(1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is
appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
(2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may
be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the
uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master
Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal.
(K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C),
the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested
property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development
standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted
pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development
standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses,
densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The
applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested
property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
9
from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three year period
specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor.
(L) Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in
Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban
Street Standards, may be requestedprocessed in connection with a PUD
Master Plan. A request for such variances shall be processed in accordance
with and subject to the standards applicable to the requestedpursuant to
the applicable variance procedures. Variances so requested and approved
prior to the approval ofin connection with a PUD Master Plan may be
incorporated into and approved as a part of the PUD Master Plan, and if so
incorporated and approved, shall be applicable to Project Development
Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and
intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan provided that such
variances have been approved prior to the approval of the PUD Master Plan
and are incorporated into the PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the
PUD Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any
approved variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may
also be processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final
Plan submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan.
ITEM 4, PUD ORDINANCE
UPDATED CODE SECTIONS
2.2.2.1 Optional Pre-Application Review
(A) Optional City Council Pre-Application Review of Complex Development
Proposals:
(1) A potential applicant for development other than a PUD Overlay may
request that the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving
preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the overall proposal
in order to assist the proposed applicant in determining whether to file a
development application or annexation petition. Only one (1) pre-
application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (A) may be requested. The
following criteria must be satisfied for such a hearing to be held:
(a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set
forth in Article 2, Division 2.2.
(b) The proposed application for approval of a development plan must
require City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment
to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action
by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use
Code
(c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed
development will have a community-wide impact.
(B) Optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review:
This optional review is available to potential PUD applicants that have not
begun any step of the Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Such review
is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual
information to the Planning and Zoning Board for PUD Overlays between
50 and 640 acres in size, or to City Council for PUD Overlays greater than
640 acres in size, regarding the proposed development including how site
constraints will be addressed and issues of controversy or opportunities
related to the development. Applicants participating in such review
procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend
to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from
staff and affected property owners. In order for a pre-application hearing
to be held, the Director must determine in writing that the proposed PUD
will have a community-wide impact. Only one (1) pre-application hearing
pursuant to this Subsection (B) may be requested.
(C) Notice and Hearing Procedure. All preapplication hearings under above
Subsections (A) or (B) this provision will be held in accordance with the
provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development
Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step
ITEM 4
Code Section 2.2.2.1
(6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less
than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting
the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing
notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded
to the applicant.
(D) Input Non-Binding, Record. The Planning and Zoning Board or City Council as
applicable pursuant to above Subsections (A) or (B) may, but shall not be
required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Planning and Zoning Board or City Council
member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City
decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal.
All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of the record
of any subsequent development review related to all or part of the property that
was the subject of the optional review.
ITEM 4
Code Section 2.2.2.1
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Max Moss
RE: PUD Land Use Code Amendment
DATE: June 12, 2018
Dear Chair Schneider and Board Members:
My name is Max Moss and I have been working for over a year on a master planned
development concept for the 860-acre parcel of land which is under contract for purchase from
Anheuser-Busch. My family and I moved to the area 4 years ago because we fell in love with
Fort Collins. It is a humbling privilege for me to have a development opportunity of this
magnitude and scope in this incredible community. It has been our goal from the very first day
to develop a community that reflects the values of Fort Collins in deep and meaningful ways.
I am writing to share with you why the PUD Overlay is crucial to our potential success. We
know there are other developers interested in pursuing projects within the PUD Overlay. I can
only speak to why it is crucial our project. Unfortunately, the Board wasn’t part of the Pre-
application Hearing with City Council on December 13, 2017 which allowed us to present broad
development concepts and the associated challenges that come with a project like this. After
listening to your questions about the PUD Overlay, I realized we needed to provide our
perspective on why this Land Use Code change is so necessary.
The project which we have named “Montava” is within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
(“MVSAP”). The 2009 updated MVSAP is the foundation for the vision that has become
Montava. The MVSAP plan as well as Montava represent a strong relationship between land
use, transportation, City Plan, and the Climate Action Plan. As stated in the MVSAP, “This plan
is a statement of how the community views itself, what the vision is for the future, and what
actions are required to implement this vision.”
Montava has been designed by DPZ, the world’s leader in New Urbanism. All aspects of the
overall MVSAP have been taken into consideration. We are integrating a 40-acre organic farm
with Native Hill, a transportation network that enables the City goals, a substantial City
Community Park with larger functional areas than Spring Canyon or Twin Silos, designing the
project to handle the Upper Cooper Slough stormwater needs for the area, developing an
integrated and strategic approach to affordable housing with multiple partners, incorporating
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
“right sized” opportunities for employment and light industrial, integrating PSD’s school system
needs into the overall project design, creating a town center approach to the community
commercial needs, and building every home to the Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Home
Standards.
That’s the overall project. What are the obstacles?
This northeast area has long been annexed to the City limits, but has major challenges, especially
for a very large, multi-phased, mixed-use, master-planned community expected to take 25 - 30
years to fully develop. The challenges include:
▪ Being located in the ELCO Water and Boxelder Sanitation special districts which
have significantly greater development costs than the City;
▪ Lack of transportation and storm drainage master-planning and lack of adequate
public infrastructure to serve the developing MVSAP properties;
▪ There are intersections in the northeast area, such as Vine/Lemay and
Vine/Timberline, that currently or in the future will not meet the APF (Adequate
Public Facilities) Ordinance, and the APF Ordinance does not currently allow
development to proceed by paying its fair share;
▪ A Metropolitan District Policy that needs to recognize the trade-offs required if larger
projects are to be able to fund things like affordable housing, net zero energy
homebuilding, integrated farming, regional storm water solutions, and much more;
▪ A fairly inflexible zoning code wherein uses can be changed only through a
cumbersome “addition of permitted use” process intended, as the name implies, for
very limited situations, and traditional rezoning, which doesn’t allow the decision
maker to review and consider the entire proposed development as part of the rezoning
review or to impose conditions on use changes. It also does not allow for upfront
creative modifications and variances, reviewed in the context of the Master Plan and
based on promotion of City policies;
▪ A Vested Property Rights Ordinance which does not allow vested property rights at a
master plan level nor an extended term beyond the legally- required three years, plus
2 potential one-year extensions.
We have been diligently working over the past year with City staff and our consultants to address
each of these challenges. Let me address the ones that directly relate to the PUD Overlay:
Zoning/Uses/Densities
When the Anheuser-Busch property was annexed, it was zoned almost exclusively Industrial and
Employment, with a very limited amount of Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning.
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
The City recently completed an Employment Land Demand Analysis. The conclusion of this
study showed two things that relate to the MVSAP area:
1) The City has far more land dedicated to Employment and Industrial use than is needed
2) This type of use does not locate itself on the fringes of communities, but in the center of
the highest population areas, because employers want amenities for their employees.
Integrating them into a New Urbanist community framework is the ideal way of potentially
achieving a community where people can work near where they live. Montava has strategically
maintained the ability to incorporate these uses over time as the market shows need and interest.
A world class community is needed to generate potential success with employment land use.
Montava intends to be such a community.
Montava has been designed to integrate the following:
▪ Up to 200,000 sf of commercial in the Town Center;
▪ Approximately 100 acres of industrial land near I-25;
▪ Medium density housing of approximately 2,000 multi-family and 2,400 single family
units;
▪ 80+ acre Community Park with additional uses incorporated into other aspects of
Montava;
▪ 40-acre organic farm;
▪ 150+ acres for Storm Water detention in partnership with Fort Collins Natural Areas; and
▪ Montava is positioning PSD for more efficient and more appropriate land use for a future
High School and Middle School site along with integrating an elementary site centrally in
the community within walking distance of the Community Park and the Organic Farm.
While we firmly believe that we can meet all legal rezoning requirements and processes – and
could have done so some time ago – we realized in discussions with City staff, that this didn’t fit
a project like Montava because it didn’t provide the City the assurances and limitations it needed
before changing the uses/densities.
A rezoning is reviewed in a vacuum without any consideration of the development plan.
Additionally you need to comply with one of two possible criteria: consistency with the City’s
adopted land use plans or showing changed conditions which justify it. This may work for a
relatively small parcel where the change of use is straightforward and simple.
That’s not the case with Montava. Here we’d be asking the Board for a recommendation, and
City Council for a decision, on a multiplicity of uses and densities for a very large area that
might take 30 years to develop without knowing why the future development needs those uses
and without any assurances that the changed uses will be tied to the project.
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
The benefits to the City seem clear:
▪ With a PUD Overlay, the Board and Council get to review the development project
that needs the uses.
▪ The uses are tied to the PUD so if it doesn’t develop as approved, the added uses are
gone and the underlying zoning controls.
▪ This is a much more transparent and effective approach for both the City and the
neighbors.
▪ There will be the same opportunities for public input as with traditional rezoning:
neighborhood meetings, Planning and Zoning Board hearing; two City council
readings of the ordinance approving the PUD Master Plan. Just as a side note on
process, we have been soliciting public comment from the outset, the latest being an
open house attended by approximately 150 people, with excellent feedback which we
are evaluating.
Modification of Development Standards/Variances
In the planning a project of this size, we anticipate that we’ll have some design elements that will
require modifications of the Land Use Code’s development standards and engineering variances
to create this walkable, mixed-use, conservation oriented, agri-urban development. Here are a
few examples of the types of modifications and variances we may need at the Master Plan level
as they fundamentally impact the layout of the project and the street system framework:
▪ Land Use Code modifications: Solar-oriented lots and street spacing.
The Montava street network is a grid pattern common in traditional neighborhood
design and supported by many Land Use Code requirements, however, it is proposed
on an angle to respond to the site’s topographic conditions and drainage patterns, and
to acknowledge the outstanding views to Longs Peak. This, combined with our use of
small lots, means that we may not be able to provide the percentage of solar-oriented
residential lots required by the Land Use Code. However, the use of passive solar,
distributed solar, and overall energy efficiency are fundamental to Montava and we
will demonstrate how we meet or exceed the goals and purposes that this Land Use
Code requirement was developed to support. Also, in some areas of Montava where
physical site features dictate or where we are planning a large land use like a
community park or school, we anticipate needing a change from the Land Use Code’s
maximum road spacing standard.
▪ LCUASS variances: Intersection design and street cross-sections.
We’ve given a lot of thought to Montava’s street network and character. When our
angled grid road system intersects with the traditional north/south road system, there
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
is an opportunity to create interesting and dynamic 3-way or “Y” shaped
intersections, in place of standard LCUASS intersection designs, to provide more
visibly open intersections with safe sight distances. Also, since we have a wide range
of land uses, from industrial to retail, and high-density residential to rural/agricultural,
we would like to add some adjusted street cross-sections to those offered as standard
in LCUASS, in order to reflect the adjacent neighborhood character. For example, we
envision wider sidewalks in retail blocks and paired one-way streets (like Mountain
Avenue) in certain character areas, etc.
The current modification process is geared toward PDPs and it’s a cumbersome and lengthy
process intended for one, or at most a very few modifications, with standards that generally do
not recognize the benefits of innovative development concepts. It allows a developer to submit a
standalone modification or a modification with a PDP. The latter is too late in the process and
the former has the same defect as with traditional rezoning, i.e. the modifications aren’t reviewed
as part of the development plan. Likewise, the current variance process, while it works well,
does not authorize variances to be granted with a master plan.
As you can see from the examples above, modifications and variances can impact the layout and
framework of our plan. We must know upfront, with the PUD Master Plan, that our needed
modifications and variances are granted, based upon whether we can show public benefit, how
these allow a development that advances the City’s adopted goals and plans.
Relative Subjectivity of PUD Overlay Standards for Uses, Densities, Modifications and
Variances
We believe the PUD standards were intentionally kept fairly subjective to provide the decision
maker and the developer with sufficient flexibility.
Subjectivity means the City has greater discretion in approving these elements. That does not
bother us because we believe it’s our job to clearly demonstrate to the Board and Council why
they are needed and how they benefit the City. The decision maker can then analyze the public
benefit at that point in time, considering what the greatest needs are and the extent to which the
specific and unique elements of the project meet those.
Also, it’s hard for anyone to legitimately complain about subjectivity when the PUD process is
an optional process, strictly at a developer’s choosing, and when the current Land Use Code
process remains in place with its much more traditional prescriptiveness.
Vested Property Rights
This project can’t proceed without long-term vested property rights for the PUD Master Plan.
Currently the City’s Code doesn’t provide for that.
A project of this size and complexity is correspondingly expensive. And, unlike most projects,
Montava needs to rely on its approved Master Plan for a very long period of time – potentially up
to 30 years and through many development phases. Without vested property rights certainty, it’s
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
financially infeasible to incur the very significant costs to purchase this large property and to
install or pay for all of the required upfront infrastructure.
The proposed PUD Overlay ordinance would allow the PUD Master Plan to obtain vested
property rights for a period commensurate with its size, complexity, expected length of build-out
and economic cycles which will vary through the build-out period (e.g. the Great Recession
affected development projects for as long as 8 years).
Vested property rights at its simplest means that one party can’t change the rules without the
other party’s consent for the agreed-upon term. With a PUD Master Plan, that’s limited to uses,
densities and approved development modifications and variances.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but I wanted to adequately explain the need for this PUD
Overlay in order to realize projects like Montava.
Timing is also a significant issue for us because of our purchase contract, the need for a
Metropolitan District Tabor election this November (so we don’t lose a year) and the very high
carrying costs of the project to date and through PUD Master Plan approval. We need to make a
submittal for that sometime this fall which is, of course, contingent on the effective date of
approval of the PUD Overlay ordinance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I look forward to being able to present our
development plan to you in the future.
Sincerely,
Max Moss
ITEM 4, PUD LAND USE CODE CHANGES
LETTER FROM MAX MOSS
From: Kirsch,Kevin
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Affordable housing comment
Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:50:06 AM
As City Planner, Clay, I do not think we are near where we want to be yet we are inviting more
people into our already overburdened infrastructure. Do you travel east and west during the rush
hour? North south routes have longer lights than east –west, so it takes forever to get home. That
one half mile stretch between Manhatten Avenue to the Landings Dr./Stanford consists of 6
intersections, the Max bus line and a major rail line. I see all the high density housing going up
around and it is causing gridlock at times, yet we want more low income housing and subsidy to
cram more people in here. You are building it, they are coming!
Here’s an idea, start a new city, one that comes with more ideas for green building’s (not just
commercial but residential) rather than continue to over burden existing cities.
We have an entire corridor up to Cheyenne, build more Timnath’s, and Wellington’s, and make it
look like any major thorough fare on the east coast. Clay – were we not to have been already built
out in Fort Collins?
Kevin R. Kirsch
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Dustin Barrington
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Attention: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:29:16 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members –
As a representative of a service organization and as a concerned citizen, I would like to voice my
support for the Mason Place project.
Permanent Supportive Housing has a clearly proven track record of providing a wide spectrum of
positive impacts in a local community.
While I genuinely empathize with the concerns of fellow citizens who live in the vicinity of mid-town,
I would suggest that their fears of negative impact are largely based in fearful conjecture rather than
evidence. The individuals who will be served by these Mason Place units are a very similar
demographic to the current residents of Red Tail Ponds, and it is very reasonable to assume that the
neighborhood impacts of Mason Place would be very comparable.
The residents of Red Tail Ponds are our local “proof of concept” for the benefits of Permanent
Supportive Housing, not only for the individuals served, but the community as a whole. When given
a supported opportunity to succeed, all of us have the ability to be “good neighbors.”
Isolating or stigmatizing community members who struggle with mental health and substance abuse
issues is not the way forward, and this logic does not represent the compassionate values of our
City.
I strongly encourage you to treat all community members equally by allowing those who are more
vulnerable to live in an accessible and affordable home that will help them to participate and
contribute to the life of our town.
Fear rarely results in equitable, balanced community solutions.
Kindness and compassion are essential elements of a truly great community. Let’s choose greatness.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dustin Barrington
Programs Manager
Catholic Charities Larimer County
460 Linden Center Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Phone: (970)484-5010 x 1416
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
(970)616-8630
dbarrington@ccdenver.org
The Mission, Ft. Collins
Donate | Facebook | Volunteer | Our Services
As the charitable arm of the Archdiocese of Denver,
and inspired by God’s love and compassion, Catholic
Charities extends the healing ministry of Jesus Christ
to the poor and those in need.
Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Melissa Frasure
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Attn: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:02:49 PM
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing development.
My name is Melissa Frasure and I am the Program Director at Neighbor to Neighbor (N2N). At N2N
we also serve those experiencing homelessness and housing instability in our community through
housing counseling and affordable housing. In order for this community to address this issue, we
must work together—we cannot address these challenges in silos. In 2017, N2N served over 1900
households in Larimer County who were experiencing homelessness or housing instability. Providing
permanent, supportive housing is a crucial part of addressing the ongoing issue of affordable
housing in our community and allows other community partners to continue to do their part to
address the issue.
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While many local
organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a significant need for permanent
housing to support homeless and low-income individuals. Last year the Murphy Center for Hope
reported serving 2,000 individuals in a single year, most of whom were living in homelessness.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable one-bedroom apartments. The average
market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $1,200/month. Affording an apartment as a
single person is simply unattainable for many folks, especially those who are dealing with trauma, a
life crisis, and various disabling conditions.
Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with a disability, including homeless veterans, with all 60
units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median income (AMI). Mason Place will offer
much needed housing for the community’s most vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives me confidence that
Mason Place will be successful. The property will be managed by staff from Housing Catalyst, the
largest property management company in Northern Colorado, including the nationally renowned
Redtail Ponds. The property managers have many years of experience managing properties similar to
Mason Place and in complying with all the various different program requirements.
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason Place is the
right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly support this
project.
Sincerely,
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Melissa Frasure
Melissa Frasure, Program Director, N2N
1550 Blue Spruce Drive | Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-488-2374 Direct | 970-484-7498 Main
opening doors. advancing lives.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in full support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing
development.
My name is Laurie Stolen, I am a keenly aware community citizen engaged in many
community wide projects in my personal and professional life. Please allow me the
chance to articulate some of the many reasons this project should be approved without
delay.
Affordable housing and homelessness are critically important issues in our community.
While many local organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a
significant need for permanent housing to support homeless and low-income individuals.
Last year the Murphy Center for Hope reported serving 2,000 individuals in a single year,
most of whom were living in homelessness. Additionally, there are over 5000 people
currently in our community that are in need of services related to mental health.
Knowing there are significant gaps in care and services for many of our community
members, permanent supportive housing is a significant component of that continuum of
care.
Mason Place will help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
Fort Collins leadership has embraced the community-based “Ten Year Plan to End
Homelessness.” Through this plan, Homeward 2020 challenged the community to work
together to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent supportive
housing plays a critical role in making progress toward this goal. This type of housing is
being used across the country to improve housing stability, employment, mental and
physical health; and to reduce substance abuse. In addition, supportive housing helps
break cycles of homelessness.
Mason Place will fill a gap in the current housing services our community provides.
This ideal location will serve homeless individuals with a disability, including homeless
veterans, with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median income
(AMI). Mason Place will offer much needed housing for the community’s most
vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
The location offers a true infill and transit-oriented development opportunity, the site has
convenient access to the MAX-Horsetooth Station, a high frequency bus rapid transit
system. The location is ideal for the target population. Directly to the north is a full-
service Safeway and a Trader Joe’s grocery store is just a 7-minute walk. Target and
Walmart, as well as other stores and restaurants, are within easy walking distance.
The location also provides excellent bicycle and pedestrian access with close proximity to
the Mason Trail, a north/south route for cyclists and pedestrians, which provides a direct
link to major destinations, activity centers, and to the City's expansive trail network.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
The design of the community will be focused on best practices in permanent supportive
housing, as well as health, sustainability, and neighborhood compatibility. Housing
Catalyst has shown they are sensitive to designing buildings that fit well with
surrounding areas, and they respond to neighbor input on building and site design.
Housing Catalyst and other local partners, including the Veteran Administration (VA),
Summitstone Health Partners, and Homeless Gear will also provide resident services to
Mason Place residents through onsite programming. These targeted services and
programs help improve stability and housing retention. Through onsite services, residents
learn skills and are supported in making their dreams of stability and hope a reality.
Housing Catalyst has been reaching out to the neighboring businesses over the last
several months to answer questions and hear their concerns. They also held a
neighborhood meeting in April to meet with neighbors and have followed up since that
meeting to provide additional information, answer questions and listen to any concerns.
Housing Catalyst has worked diligently to ensure the neighbor’s needs and concerns are
addressed.
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives me full
confidence that Mason Place will be successful. The property will be managed by staff
from Housing Catalyst, the largest property management company in Northern Colorado,
including the nationally renowned Redtail Ponds. The property managers have many
years of experience managing properties similar to Mason Place and in complying with
all the various different program requirements.
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason
Place is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-
heartedly support this project.
Sincerely,
Laurie Stolen
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: wendy cohen
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Darin Atteberry; Kristin Stephens
Subject: Mason supportive housing project
Date: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:42:23 PM
Dear Clay,
My husband I own and co-own several buildings in the Horsetooth/College area and are very concerned
about the Permanent supportive housing being proposed on Mason St. Over the last year or so, we have
noticed an influx of folks who are damaging property, trespassing, public urinating and defecating around
our properties. I have run off several folks who were basically camping around our buildings. They leave
trash, empty liquor bottles, sleeping bags etc. It just is becoming disturbing. I am worried about a complex
like this affecting businesses in an negative way. We are trying so hard to revitalize this part of town and
make it appealing to shoppers etc. I know so many local people who avoid old town because of the folks
who sit on corners and harass people for money and when I don't give them any, they curse me out and
are so unpleasant. So whatever it is worth, We do not support this project on Mason for many reasons
but the most prominent being safety. I can not imagine what a conflict this must be for the IBMC right next
door to this proposed plan. There are kids getting out of classes at night and the impact would be huge
for them. If they left that would be a problem for the building owner who would have a tough time renting
that space again. Please reconsider doing this. Keep Midtown growing in a positive way.
Can you please inform me of the next project meeting? I would like to attend and have a voice in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Wendy R. Cohen
3600 Mitchell Drive #90
970-581-6870
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 14, 2018
To: Jeff Schneider and members of Planning & Zoning Board
RE: Affordable Housing Board support for Mason Place permanent supportive housing
development.
Summary:
Housing Catalyst’s proposed Mason Place permanent supportive housing development will
create 60 new affordable housing apartments for homeless people, and will provide onsite
support services, as well. This project will adapt an existing building in the transit-oriented
district along Mason Ave, and will cost approximately $16 million to create. The Fort Collins
CDBG commission has already recommended an award of over $1,100,000 in available
affordable housing funds toward this project, through the Competitive Process in the Spring of
this year. In addition, City staff and the Affordable Housing Board also recommended use of an
additional approximately $800,000 of the Affordable Housing Capital Fund toward the Mason
Place development.
Affordable Housing Board Support:
The Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board supports the building of the Mason Place permanent
supportive housing project. The concept of permanent supportive housing has been proven
effective locally with the Redtail Ponds project, also created by Housing Catalyst, and the need
for additional housing of this type has been verified. The model is based on the idea of Housing
First, meaning that stable housing must happen first, before a person is able to work on issues
like substance abuse, appropriate management of physical or mental illness, or employment.
With the addition of supportive services, residents will have access to case managers,
counselors and employment specialists. Mason Place will be able to serve this difficult and hard
to reach population, including homeless veterans and individuals with disabilities, who have
extremely low incomes. In addition, the proposed location is ideally located near the Max bus
line as well as grocery stores and other nearby retail. After discussion during our June 7th,
2018 board meeting, the Board voted 5-0-1 in favor of writing this letter of support for the
project with the Planning & Zoning Board, with one member abstaining because she is an
employee of Housing Catalyst.
Diane Cohn,
Chair, Fort Collins Affordable Housing Board
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
May 18, 2018
Dear Ms. Christensen, Housing Catalyst Director of Program Development and City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning
Board,
I am writing in support of Mason Place Permanent Supportive Housing project.
Homeward 2020 guides strategy and long-term solutions to address homelessness through our community’s 10-Year
Plan to Make Homelessness Rare, Short-Lived and Non-Recurring. The plan focuses on Housing First approaches and
data-driven strategic investments in affordable and supportive housing and services for those experiencing
homelessness, homelessness prevention, and ultimately, support for individuals to achieve stability, wellness and
housing retention.
The need in our community to address chronic homelessness is undeniable. Local data indicates a clear imperative to
increase very low-income and supportive housing options for community members experiencing chronic homeless
today. We know 339 people are experiencing chronic homelessness today in Fort Collins alone, including over thirty
seniors age sixty-two and over, and hundreds with complex conditions who will benefit from housing paired with long-
term, coordinated, supportive services.
Creation of 60 additional permanent supportive housing units at Mason Place helps us develop permanently dedicated
infrastructure to house some of our community’s most vulnerable people. Mason Place PSH will serve homeless
individuals with a disability, including homeless veterans, with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of Area
Median Income. With 60 Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs), including approval from the VA to project base 15 VASH
vouchers for this project, Mason Place serves those most severely income-restricted and needing critical services with
deep AMI targeting.
Knowing Housing Catalyst, and the other supportive services partners involved, gives me confidence that Mason Place
will be successful. Housing Catalyst and other local partners, including the Veteran Administration (VA), Summitstone
Health Partners and Homeless Gear will provide resident services to Mason Place residents through onsite programming
to help improve stability and housing retention.
The property will be managed by staff from Housing Catalyst, the largest property management company in Northern
Colorado, including the nationally renowned Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing. The property managers are
familiar with the tax credit, PSH, and project-based voucher programs. They have many years of experience managing
properties similar to Mason Place and in complying with program requirements.
I whole-heartedly support this project. Mason Place PSH project reflects our community’s shared priority to address
chronic homelessness.
Sincerely,
Holly LeMasurier
Homeward 2020 Executive Director
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: sholter
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Re: Mason Place hearing date and time
Date: Friday, June 08, 2018 11:46:44 AM
Dear Clay,
How is planning for this project going? Just wondering if there is any real reason to attend this meeting if
this project is pretty much a go with the city. I know I have spoken to other land owners in the area and
tenants in the buildings and they are not to happy that this is going in our neighborhood. As a property
owner of 9 buildings on South Mason I know that we are not that keen on this coming to our area.
I have friends that own the business condos down by the other housing unit that is just south of us by
Woodley's Furniture store. They said that one of the HOA's is trying to figure out how they can build a
fence around to keep people out. They said there are so many other drug sales and more homeless
people down in that area since that other housing low income was built. Unfortunately like minded people
usually bring like minded people to the area.
The other day on my way to work on South Mason I counted 14 homeless people walking from
Horsetooth to Boardwalk. This area seems to attract them and Fort Collins in general seems to be
growing a large homeless population. I understand that this is not supposed to be a homeless shelter...it
is to be helping out low income people, but I think that more homeless will also show up in this area. It
also seems crazy to spend 9 million dollars to help out such few people. I was really shocked at the low
numbers of people that the other unit has helped over the years. I just think it is an odd place to put a unit
like this also considering the other types of buildings and businesses that are in the area. I do know that
the Novak's that own IBMC building are very nervous about the security of their students as she said they
found out that there are over 50 police calls made to the building down South.
So, other then information in the city planning what will they be discussing at this meeting. The last
meeting was just informative. It really seemed like the city was on board with this and it is really only a
matter of the final planning before the project will get started.
Thank you for your communication during this planning session. You have been great with letting people
know what is going on. We know the city is on over load with all the building and development. So your
time is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sandra
"Be a pineapple, stand tall, wear a crown and
be the sweetest on the inside".
-----Original Message-----
From: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>
To: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 8, 2018 10:43 am
Subject: Mason Place hearing date and time
Good morning,
Housing Catalyst has gone through two rounds of staff review and is ready for a public hearing for
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mason Place. We have scheduled the public hearing for June 21 with the hearing beginning at 6 PM.
The Planning & Zoning Board will conduct the hearing at City Hall, which is located at 300 Laporte
Ave. We will post the hearing documents at the following webpage for your review:
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. We invite you to participate and provide
your feedback at the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. If you are unable to attend, you may send
your thoughts to me and I will pass them along to the Board.
Thanks,
Clay
Clay Frickey | City Planner
City of Fort Collins | 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524
W: 970.224.6045 | E: cfrickey@fcgov.com
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Ken John
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: David Rout; Michele Christensen
Subject: Support For Mason Place
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:24:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image002.png
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing
development. I am doing so personally as a long-time resident of Fort Collins and as a
member of the management staff of the Murphy Center for Hope. Our goal at the Murphy
Center is to provide a continuum of services, in a single location, to help people to survive
through crisis, move forward into stabilization and ultimately to thrive in a return to self-
sufficiency while helping our community fulfill its vision to make homelessness rare, short-
lived and non-recurring. Projects like Mason Place are critically needed in order for our many
of the people we serve to escape homelessness and continue to move forward into self-
sufficiency.
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While many
local organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a significant need for
permanent housing to support homeless and low-income individuals. Last year the Murphy
Center for Hope served more than 3,000 individuals, most of whom were living in
homelessness.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness. Fort Collins
leadership has embraced the community-based “Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.”
Through this plan, Homeward 2020 challenged the community to work together to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent supportive housing plays a
critical role in making progress toward this goal. This type of housing is being used across the
country to improve housing stability, employment, mental and physical health; and to reduce
substance abuse. In addition, supportive housing helps break cycles of homelessness.
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives me confidence
that Mason Place will be successful. The property will be managed by staff from Housing
Catalyst, the largest property management company in Northern Colorado, including the
nationally renowned Redtail Ponds. The property managers have many years of experience
managing properties similar to Mason Place and in complying with all the various different
program requirements. The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In
my opinion, Mason Place is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right
agency. I whole-heartedly support this project.
Sincerely,
Ken John
Ken John
Murphy Center Development Director
(970) 581-4921
We’re excited to announce our new agency name: Homeless Gear (our former name)
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
is now called Homeward Alliance!
Visit us at www.HomewardAlliance.org. Visit the Murphy Center (operated by Homeward Alliance) at
www.MurphyCenter.org.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
To: Clay Frickey
City Planner, City of Fort Collins CO.
Mr. Frickey,
Since the enactment of ordinances against sitting, laying on benches, etc. in the Old Town area in an
effort to curb the homeless presence, there has been a noticeable increase in the already ever-present
panhandling and apparent homeless population in the south side of town along the Mason corridor.
The area surrounded by Horsetooth, Mason, Harmony, and John F. Kennedy has always had it’s share
of this activity, but has grown in numbers of late. There are people camping along the Mason Trail,
panhandlers at the intersections and surrounding businesses and shopping areas. I do not feel that I am
alone in feeling that the City has not done anything to curb such activity in our neighborhoods and has,
in fact, simply relocated this activity from one part of town to here.
The perception that this increase was timed with the opening of Redtail Ponds is very real, and gives
rise to fears of another such facility in the heart of our neighborhood adding to the problem. Yes, I
know that there have been studies that say having low income housing does not affect area property
values. This is not the issue. Is Old Town more inviting and enjoyable with a lessened homeless
presence? I would argue that yes, it is. I only want the same for my neighborhood, and adding more
homeless to the mix will not accomplish this. Here are some facts that have been reported by others in
my area that you may have heard about:
“some facts I learned while attending the community meeting on April 9th. First and foremost, I think
that it's most important that you know that this homeless and disabled veterans’ apartment complex
does not have any requirements other than being homeless or a disabled vet. Residents do NOT have to
go off of drugs, they do NOT have to seek drug treatment, they do NOT have to look for a job (if they are
physically and mentally capable), and they do NOT have to seek mental health services if they are
struggling with mental illness. The only requirement that the Housing Catalyst described is that they
cannot do meth. These are the same requirements as the Housing Catalyst's Red Tail complex. The
services are "offered" but not "required." Therefore, residents can live there for free in a fully furnished
apartment but do not have to try and better their lives or contribute to our community.”
Also: “Additional information you will want to know is that one of our neighbors is a police officer, She
attended the meeting with us and discussed with the director of the Housing Catalyst how she has
responded to several calls that involved both residents of Red Tail as well as the homeless camped out
near Red Tail (south of Walmart, near the southern Maxline hub). The director stated that their
residents do not comingle with the homeless or transients. After the police officer reiterated her point
that she herself has been on several calls where the two were engaged in activity together, the director
flat out told the officer she did not believe her information. Unfortunately, crime has increased greatly
since 2015 when Red Tail opened, and some of these residents are involved. Having another
unrestricted facility within 1.3 miles of Red Tail, connected by the Max Bus, is only going to add to the
increased problems we are seeing along Mason Trail corridor.”
Is this an area YOU would want to live in with YOUR kids?
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
If permanent supportive housing is to be placed near our homes, will any protections such as those
done in Old Town be enacted here? Will any steps be taken to decrease the existing problems? Since
nothing has been done thus far, I am not optimistic that anything will be done in the future. Please
reconsider allowing another such facility in the Mid Town Arts building. Success of such a program is
dependent upon community support. You don’t have mine, and as opposition grows I feel this endeavor
would be destined for failure.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Steve Lewis
3812 Benthaven St
Fort Collins, CO 80526
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Bonnie Stegner
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Mason Place Project
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:58:02 PM
Dear Planing and Zoning Board,
As life long citizens of Fort Collins we have watched the lack of affordable housing become a major issue and
homelessness rise. As realtors we are acutely aware that many people working in Fort Collins have to move further
and further out in order to find housing they can afford. This creates more and more traffic congestion - another
major issue.
All options that address the need for permanent housing for low-income individuals and create support for the
homeless need serious consideration. Permanent supportive housing plays a critical role in making progress towards
the city’s stated goal of making homelessness short-lived and nonrecurring.
The fact that the Mason Place Project will be owned and managed by Housing Catalyst, which for many years has
already successfully managed similar projects, gives the Fort Collins Planing and Zoning the confidence that the
project will be successful and of much benefit to our City. This is the right solution, at the right location, managed
by the right agency.
We whole-heartedly support this project and look forward to it becoming a reality in the exceptional city we are
privileged to live in.
John and Bonnie Stegner
3000 San Luis Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Marla Cleary
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Attn: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:50:11 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing development.
I am a resident of Fort Collins, and I feel that the addition of permanent supportive housing is key to
our community’s strategic plan to make homelessness rare, short lived and nonrecurring.
Homelessness does not only affect the people experiencing it, but rather, the community as a whole.
By adding Mason Place to Fort Collins, we will be moving our community in a forward, positive
direction. In addition to being a community member, I also work with individuals and families
experiencing homelessness every day. I am the Director of Homeward Alliance’s Housing First
Initiative program. I see the need for more affordable/subsidized housing as well as supportive
services as the solution to more efficiently and effectively support vulnerable members of our
community. I am grateful that Housing Catalyst has stepped up to the plate to be the catalyst for
our city’s forward movement.
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While many local
organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a significant need for permanent
housing to support homeless and low-income individuals. Last year the Murphy Center for Hope
reported serving 2,000 individuals in a single year, most of whom were living in homelessness.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
Fort Collins leadership has embraced the community-based “Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.”
Through this plan, Homeward 2020 challenged the community to work together to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent supportive housing plays a critical role
in making progress toward this goal. This type of housing is being used across the country to improve
housing stability, employment, mental and physical health; and to reduce substance abuse. In
addition, supportive housing helps break cycles of homelessness.
Mason Place will fill a gap in the current housing services our community provides.
Housing Catalyst and other local partners, including the Veteran Administration (VA), Summitstone
Health Partners, and Homeward Alliance (previously known as Homeless Gear) will also provide
resident services to Mason Place residents through onsite programming. These targeted services
and programs help improve stability and housing retention. Through onsite services, residents learn
skills and are supported in making their dreams of stability and hope a reality.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason Place is the
right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly support this
project.
Sincerely,
Marla Cleary
Housing First Initiative Director
(970) 541-9719
We’re excited to announce our new agency name: Homeless Gear (our former name)
is now called Homeward Alliance!
Visit us at www.HomewardAlliance.org. Visit the Murphy Center (operated by Homeward Alliance) at
www.MurphyCenter.org.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Linda Nuss
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Attn: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 2:12:25 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing development.
My name is Linda Nuss and I am the Operations Director for Homeward Alliance (formally known as
Homeless Gear).
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While many local
organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a significant need for permanent
housing to support homeless and low-income individuals. Last year the Murphy Center for Hope
reported serving 2,000 individuals in a single year, most of whom were living in homelessness.
Housing is a daily challenge and while every program under the Homeward Alliance has a “housing
first focus”, it is a struggle because of the lack of availability and the competitive nature of housing in
Fort Collins.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
Homelessness
Fort Collins leadership has embraced the community-based “Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.”
Through this plan, Homeward 2020 challenged the community to work together to make
homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent supportive housing plays a critical role
in making progress toward this goal. This type of housing is being used across the country to improve
housing stability, employment, mental and physical health; and to reduce substance abuse. In
addition, supportive housing helps break cycles of homelessness.
For many of the people who are struggling with homelessness or are at severe risk of it, surviving the
day is a struggle in and of itself. For those who come to us for help, we ask them all, “what is your
housing plan?”. We plant that seed early on and work with them to move them towards the end
goal of housing. There simply isn’t enough and we need more. To move a persona long the path of
self-sufficiency and get to the end goal of getting housed and tell them there aren’t a lot of options
is heart breaking.
Mason Place will fill a gap in the current housing services our community provides and help to fill a
real need for those who cannot compete in a housing market that is very competitive.
Low-Income Housing
Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable one-bedroom apartments. The average
market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $1,200/month. Affording an apartment as a
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
single person is simply unattainable for many folks, especially those who are dealing with trauma, a
life crisis, and various disabling conditions.
Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with a disability, including homeless veterans, with all 60
units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median income (AMI). Mason Place will offer
much needed housing for the community’s most vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
Location
A true infill and transit-oriented development opportunity, the site has convenient access to the
MAX Horsetooth Station, a high frequency bus rapid transit system. The location is ideal for the
target population. Directly to the north is a full-service Safeway and a Trader Joe’s grocery store is
just a 7-minute walk. Target and Walmart, as well as other stores and restaurants, are within easy
walking distance.
The location also provides excellent bicycle and pedestrian access with close proximity to the Mason
Trail, a north/south route for cyclists and pedestrians, which provides a direct link to major
destinations, activity centers, and to the City's expansive trail network.
This also would be very convenient for our guests that are needing to access the Murphy Center for
available and needed resources. If guests of the Murphy Center are housed in this facility, it easily
allows for continue and needed case management to continue for added stability.
Building Design
The design of the community will be focused on best practices in permanent supportive housing, as
well as health, sustainability, and neighborhood compatibility. Housing Catalyst has shown they are
sensitive to designing buildings that fit well with surrounding areas, and they respond to neighbor
input on building and site design.
Services
Housing Catalyst and other local partners, including the Veteran Administration (VA), Summitstone
Health Partners, and Homeward Alliance will also provide resident services to Mason Place residents
through onsite programming. These targeted services and programs help improve stability and
housing retention. Through onsite services, residents learn skills and are supported in making their
dreams of stability and hope a reality.
Community Process
Housing Catalyst has been reaching out to the neighboring businesses over the last several months
to answer questions and hear their concerns. They also held a neighborhood meeting in April to
meet with neighbors and have followed up since that meeting to provide additional information,
answer questions and listen to any concerns. Housing Catalyst has worked diligently to ensure the
neighbor’s needs and concerns are addressed.
Housing Catalyst
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives me confidence that
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mason Place will be successful. The property will be managed by staff from Housing Catalyst, the
largest property management company in Northern Colorado, including the nationally renowned
Redtail Ponds. The property managers have many years of experience managing properties similar to
Mason Place and in complying with all the various different program requirements.
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason Place is the
right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly support this
project.
Sincerely,
Linda Nuss
Operations Director
Cell: (970) 316-4037
General: (970) 658-9878
We’re excited to announce our new agency name: Homeless Gear (our former name)
is now called Homeward Alliance!
Visit us at www.HomewardAlliance.org. Visit the Murphy Center (operated by Homeward Alliance) at
www.MurphyCenter.org.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
PO Box 873
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0873
www.HomewardAlliance.org
www.MurphyCenter.org
(970) 658-9878
Homeward Alliance is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Homeward Alliance was previously known as Homeless Gear (in
2018, Homeless Gear changed its name to Homeward Alliance). The Murphy Center is an initiative of Homeward Alliance.
June 14, 2018
To the City of Fort Collins’ Planning and Zoning Board:
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing development proposed by
Housing Catalyst.
My name is David Rout, and I am the Executive Director of Homeward Alliance, known formerly as Homeless
Gear. Homeward Alliance manages the Murphy Center—the local hub of services for people facing
homelessness—and nine additional programs.
Homeward Alliance served more than 5,000 individuals in 2017, including more than 2,500 at the Murphy
Center alone. Those individuals represent a diverse cross-section of our community and include many
individuals with disabilities who simply cannot retain housing without permanent, supportive services.
This project would help fill numerous gaps in our community, including:
Permanent Supportive Housing for Individuals Experiencing Chronic Homelessness
Much as Redtail Ponds has successfully housed and maintained housing for dozens of individuals experiencing
chronic homelessness, Mason Place would provide housing stability to some of the most vulnerable individuals
in our community. Permanent supportive housing is a widely-accepted and highly-successful best-practice
intervention that improves housing stability, employment outcomes and mental/physical health—and saves
communities money.
Low-Income Housing
Individuals and families who are homeless struggle to find housing in the context of Fort Collins’ competitive and
costly housing market. The average market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Fort Collins is approximately
$1,200/month, a cost that is particularly-prohibitive for individuals with disabling conditions, histories of trauma,
etc.
Services
Homeward Alliance has already signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide long-term,
supportive services to individuals housed in Mason Place, and we look forward to working alongside Housing
Catalyst, SummitStone Health Partners, the Veterans Administration and other local service providers. Those
onsite services are essential to ensuring the long-term stability of residents.
Housing Catalyst has the experience and knowledge to effectively implement a project such as Mason Place, and
we wholeheartedly endorse its proposal.
Sincerely,
David Rout, Executive Director
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Mary Alice McComb
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen; McComb Mary Alice
Subject: Mason Street Facility
Date: Saturday, June 16, 2018 3:34:25 PM
Attention: Planning and Zoning Board Saturday, June 16, 2018
I strongly support the proposed Mason Street Permanent Supportive Housing project. This 60-unit
project is much needed, and it will greatly enhance the community. Communities that support
housing and services for the most vulnerable among us receive benefits both tangible and intangible
in greater measure than than the actual dollar cost.
I was on a neighborhood committee for the Redtail Ponds facility. At that time a few individuals in
my neighborhood of Clarendon Hills protested loudly and tastelessly. They predicted all sorts of dire
and imaginative consequences for allowing the disabled, the working poor, veterans, and so forth, to
live close to us more privileged folk. I carefully watched, and I state proudly and happily: Not one of
those dire consequences was realized. No crime! No disruption! No damage to our grass! No
nothing!
It has been a delight to have Redtail Ponds just across the railroad tracks from my house. It has been
a delight to take out-of-town visitors by Redtail to see the state-of-the-art facility. It has been a
delight to see the gardens, the activities, the art, the care and attention to community life, the
residents at our recent election meetings. Many vote, pay taxes, have opinions and feelings, serve as
volunteers, and grace the community in all sorts of ways.
I have no doubt that Housing Catalyst can bring forth the Mason Street facility in the same
constructive and practical way. The careful planning, screening, monitoring, staffing is a pleasure to
behold. I look forward to the progress of the Mason Street facility—every step of the way. I hope
process moves along very quickly.
Mary Alice McComb, PhD
Licensed Psychologist
Vice Chair, Homeward Alliance, formerly Homeless Gear
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
LARIMER COUNTY | CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES DIVISION
2307 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-4378, 970.980.2600, Larimer.org/cjs
June 18, 2018
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
Dear City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board:
I am writing to express Larimer County Criminal Justice Services Division's support of
the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing development.
Larimer County Criminal Justice Services supervises adults in the criminal justice
system within the framework of a community-connected setting. Our programs utilize
support, structure, and accountability to manage our clients’ access to the
community. It is not uncommon for our clients to have a physical or mental health
disability, struggle with substance abuse, and come to us from homelessness and are at
risk of homelessness after discharging. A significant barrier for our clientele is
affordable and safe housing. A component of Larimer County’s Strategic Plan is to
address behavioral health access in Larimer County. We recognize the significance of
mental health in our work and when a mental health disorder is diagnosed as severe
and persistent, it is disabling, but with the right support, individuals can lead productive
lives. Many of our Criminal Justice Services’ programs are oriented toward addressing
and supporting clients living with mental health problems and helping them attain a
better future.
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While
many local organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a
significant need for permanent housing to support homeless and low-income
individuals. We see this need surrounding our community at all levels.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
Thereby increasing public safety and overall community wellbeing.
Fort Collins leadership has embraced the community-based “Ten Year Plan to End
Homelessness.” Through this plan, Homeward 2020 challenged the community to work
together to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and nonrecurring. Permanent
supportive housing plays a critical role in making progress toward this goal. This type of
housing is being used across the country to improve housing stability, employment,
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 18, 2018
Mason Place Project
Page 2
mental and physical health; and to reduce substance abuse. In addition, supportive
housing helps break cycles of homelessness.
Mason Place will fill a gap in the current housing services our community provides.
Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable one-bedroom
apartments. The average market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around
$1,200/month. Affording an apartment as a single person is simply unattainable for
many of our clients, especially those who are dealing with trauma, a life crisis, and
various disabling conditions.
Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with a disability, including homeless
veterans, with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median
income (AMI). Mason Place will offer much needed housing for the community’s most
vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
This project provides a true infill and transit-oriented development opportunity, the site
has convenient access to the MAX Horsetooth Station, a high frequency bus rapid
transit system. The location is ideal for the target population. Directly to the north is a
full-service Safeway and a Trader Joe’s grocery store is just a 7-minute walk. Target
and Walmart, as well as other stores and restaurants, are within easy walking distance.
The location also provides excellent bicycle and pedestrian access with close proximity
to the Mason Trail, a north/south route for cyclists and pedestrians, which provides a
direct link to major destinations, activity centers, and to the City's expansive trail
network.
Housing Catalyst and other local partners will provide services to Mason Place
residents through onsite programming. These targeted services and programs help
improve stability, community safety, health and well-being of the residents and housing
retention. Through onsite services, residents learn skills and are supported in making
their dreams of stability and hope a reality.
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives us
confidence that Mason Place will be successful. They have a track record with similar
projects and are actively engaged in community partnerships, which are integral to the
success of a project such as this. The property will be managed by staff from Housing
Catalyst, the largest property management company in Northern Colorado. They have a
track record of success including the nationally renowned Redtail Ponds. The property
managers have many years of experience managing properties like Mason Place and in
complying with all the various program requirements.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 18, 2018
Mason Place Project
Page 3
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason
Place is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-
heartedly support this project.
Sincerely,
Michael Ruttenberg MS, LMFT
Clinical Director
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 14, 2018
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing
development.
I grew-up in Fort Collins, lived out of state for 10 years, and just recently moved back.
While Fort Collins has made amazing headway in addressing homelessness in our
community, it is because of efforts like Housing Catalyst’s. And while there has been
positive movement, there is still so much more to be done!
I see Redtail Ponds as an incredibly successful project. There are so many issues that lead
a person to homelessness; addiction, mental health issues, an unfortunate life events.
Permanent supportive housing, such as Redtail Ponds and Mason Place, are the best way
to not only get individuals off the streets, but also provide a network of support for these
individuals to address the deeper, more complicated circumstances that may have led
them to homelessness.
Affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our community. While
many local organizations are working to address these challenges, there is still a
significant need for permanent housing to support homeless and low-income individuals.
Last year the Murphy Center for Hope reported serving 2,000 individuals in a single year,
most of whom were living in homelessness.
Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs around homelessness.
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason
Place is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-
heartedly support this project.
Sincerely,
Diane Matthews
dnlsmtthws@gmail.com
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Donald Scott
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Re: Mason Place hearing date and time
Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:50:06 PM
Hello Mr. Frickey,
My name is Don Scott, and my wife and I own and operate AAMCO Transmission
directly across the street from the Mason Place proposal. I did attend the first
meeting held regarding this project, and have been doing considerable research and
thinking about this proposal since. Unfortunately I will be out of town on business
on the 21st, and so will be unable to attend this meeting. I must tell you I have very
serious concerns about how this project will affect our neighborhood, my business,
my property value, and public safety. Here are some of my concerns.
I have a real problem with how this was presented to the neighborhood from the
outset. I was first contacted about this proposal by Travis Ackerman of Cushman &
Wakefield. He informed me of the impending sale and told me of the desire of the
new owners to convert this property to "multi-family use". We talked about the
protective covenant within the Creger Plaza "Land Use" agreement and he informed
me that 75% of the owners would need to sign off on an amendment for the change
to the covenants to take place. During these entire discussions, I spoke with both
Travis Ackerman and Kim Iwanski. Never once did either of them mention that this
was to be a "homeless residence". I only found out about the real purpose of this
"multi-family" proposal by reading about it in the Coloradoan. By that time,
apparently he had gathered enough signatures to overcome this obstacle. Having
now spoken with several of my neighbors, it appears as if Mr. Ackerman forgot this
important detail in his presentation to them as well. Of course, I still have the string
of emails between Mr. Ackerman and myself if you would like to confirm any of
this. Now...having said that...here are my more immediate concerns at this point.
After careful consideration and research, It seems pretty clear to me that this will
hurt both my auto repair business and my property value. We are a busy shop and
on most nights we have to secure several of our customer's vehicles in front of our
building as our fenced secured lot behind our building will not hold the number of
vehicles that we typically have here each and every night. Clearly, security and theft
prevention will become much more of an issue. If a customer knows he will have to
leave his car overnight (as most do in our business), would they feel comfortable
leaving it at a place of business located in an area saturated by the homeless? Would
you?
As you probably know, there are already numerous homeless people and
panhandlers that wander the neighborhood in this area. I pick up trash and debris
left behind by them almost on a daily basis from under our trees in front.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Additionally, some of them clearly have mental issues that causes them to act out
irrationally and sometimes actually yell threats or shout obscenities to my
customers and employees. As I am sure you must be aware, some of them are very
menacing and threatening. Not good for business! Additionally, they have stolen
mail from my mailbox on more than one occasion. I can't help but assume that these
problems will only be compounded if this project moves forward.
Mr. Frickey, if you have not already done so, I would ask that you take the time to
check the police records related to calls to the Red Tail residence facility. You will
see that the police have been called there on several occasions within the past year
for instances relating from minor disturbances all the way to assault and theft.
I am approaching retirement age, and have worked long and hard to build my
business and pay off my building so that when the time comes, I will be able to sell
the business and either sell or rent my property at a reasonable market value.
Although I feel compassion for the homeless, common sense tells me this is not the
viable solution that it is being portrayed to be, and certainly is not fair to the
neighboring businesses and residences that will undoubtedly be negatively
impacted. This business and this building are my retirement. Please consider these
concerns as you move forward .
Respectfully,
Don Scott
AAMCO Transmissions of Ft. Collins
(970) 226-4477 Office
(970) 215-7863 Cell
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning,
Housing Catalyst has gone through two rounds of staff review and is ready for a public
hearing for Mason Place. We have scheduled the public hearing for June 21 with the hearing
beginning at 6 PM. The Planning & Zoning Board will conduct the hearing at City Hall,
which is located at 300 Laporte Ave. We will post the hearing documents at the following
webpage for your review: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. We invite
you to participate and provide your feedback at the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. If
you are unable to attend, you may send your thoughts to me and I will pass them along to
the Board.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Thanks,
Clay
Clay Frickey | City Planner
City of Fort Collins | 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524
W: 970.224.6045 | E: cfrickey@fcgov.com
--
Donald Scott
AAMCO Transmissions
dscott1103@gmail.com
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Bob Pawlikowski
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Support for the Mason Place Project
Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 1:46:23 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Good afternoon Clay.
I am writing to support the Housing Catalyst Mason Place affordable housing project.
I am the Director of Finance for Care Housing, Inc. in Fort Collins and I live near Horsetooth and
Boardwalk, in the Landings subdivision, as well.
Our city needs as many affordable housing communities as we can get. Communities are the
strongest where there is a diverse population.
Having attended the United Methodist conference last week in Ogden, UT, I immersed myself in the
homelessness group called Family Promise. They work together to provide critical support for
individuals who just happen to be having short-term difficulties with the anticipation of a quick
rebound. My specific United Methodist church offers a similar program called Faith, Family,
Hospitality, for which I now have a larger appreciation.
In addition, being the Director of Finance, I know our plight in finding solutions. Finding places to
build are becoming awfully scarce. And often, low-income housing seems to be concentrated in
specific locations which become more like ghettos, a word used by several people when I attended a
City planning meeting. Mason Place would be a relatively small project located away from other
similar communities.
With rental rates as high as they are, it is nearly impossible to raise a family affordably. Where are
families supposed to cut back on expenses? I read a recent article stating that in no city, county or
state in the United States can a person afford to rent a 2 bedroom apartment if they only earn
minimum wage.
As I understand, Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with disabilities, including veterans,
with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median income (AMI). Mason Place
will offer much needed housing for the community’s most vulnerable populations with low AMI
targeting.
With access to the MAX system and walking trails, tenants will be able to get to grocery stores,
shopping, restaurants and other activities.
Housing Catalyst has served the community well for years. I am sure that the models will fit well
with the surrounding area. The design of the community will be focused on best practices in
permanent supportive housing, as well as health, sustainability, and neighborhood compatibility.
Housing Catalyst and other local partners, including the Veteran Administration (VA), Summitstone
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Health Partners, and Homeless Gear will also be providing resident services to Mason Place residents
through onsite programs. These targeted services and programs help improve stability and housing
retention. Through onsite services, residents will learn skills and be supported in making their
dreams of stability and hope a reality.
Although I did not attend any meetings, Housing Catalyst has been reaching out to the businesses
and other neighbors over the last several months to answer questions and hear concerns. Housing
Catalyst has worked diligently to ensure that neighbors’ needs and concerns are addressed.
Knowing that the Housing Catalyst will own and manage this property gives me confidence that
Mason Place will be successful, just as they have been with their Redtail Ponds project. The property
managers and leadership have many years of experience in managing and complying with all the
various different program requirements.
The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. Mason Place is the right solution,
at the right location, managed by the right agency. I support this project.
Thanks much.
Bob Pawlikowski, Director of Finance
CARE Housing|1303 W. Swallow Road, Bldg 11|Fort Collins, CO 80526
Office: 970.829.1607 |Cell: 970.590.4507
www.carehousing.org
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Kelly Evans
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Attn: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Monday, June 18, 2018 7:56:24 PM
Hello Clay and P & Z Board,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit Neighbor to Neighbor’s support for the Mason Place
proposal from Housing Catalyst. We appreciate your careful attention to this topic.
Housing Catalyst is a proven leader in providing equitable housing opportunity to residents of Fort
Collins. Unfortunately, developers of affordable products to compliment Housing Catalyst’s efforts
have been few and far between. As you know, less than 6% of rentals in Fort Collins are affordable
while over 14% of Fort Collins residents live in poverty. It’s estimated that 30% of local renters pay
over 50% of their income directly toward rent. Each year, Neighbor to Neighbor provides
emergency rent assistance to thousands of local residents struggling to make ends meet. Housing
Catalyst is a local and statewide housing leader. Knowing that Housing Catalyst will own and manage
this property provides confidence that Mason Place will be successful. The property will be managed
by staff from Housing Catalyst, the largest property management company in Northern Colorado,
including the nationally renowned Redtail Ponds. The property managers have many years of
experience managing properties similar to Mason Place and in complying with all the various
different program requirements.
Providing 60 units of affordable, permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals
with AMI of less than 30% AMI is a critical solution toward our housing equity issues. Fort Collins’
greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable one-bedroom apartments. The average market
rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $1,200/month. Affording an apartment as a single
person is simply unattainable for many, especially those who are dealing with trauma, a life crisis,
and various disabling conditions. Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with a disability,
including homeless veterans, with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median
income (AMI). Permanent supportive housing plays a critical role in making progress toward this
goal. This type of housing is considered best-practice across the country in improving housing
stability, employment, mental and physical health; and in reducing substance abuse. In addition,
supportive housing helps break cycles of homelessness. Mason Place will offer much needed housing
for the community’s most vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions related to Neighbor to Neighbor’s support of
Mason Place. Thank you for your time and consideration of the housing needs of all Fort Collins
residents.
Kelly Evans, Executive Director, N2N
1550 Blue Spruce Drive | Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-488-2363 Direct | 970-484-7498 Main | 970-690-0416 Cell
opening doors. advancing lives.
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Vanessa Fenley
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: Michele Christensen
Subject: Attn: Planning and Zoning Board
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 1:16:41 PM
Dear Planning and Zoning Board members --
I'm writing this letter in support of Housing Catalyst's proposed development of Mason Place,
a permanent supportive housing community.
For the past five and a half years, I have worked in Fort Collins, primarily focusing on issues
of housing and homelessness. I hear persistently from community members and city leaders
these are critical issues for our community, and our long-term economic and social
sustainability rely on correcting our housing attainability issues. While households across the
income scale may be struggling with housing costs, no other population feels the effects of our
market more severely than those experiencing homelessness.
I currently help facilitate the Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System
(CAHPS) process for Northern Colorado, as a contracted consultant. This process is intensive
and relies on dozens of service providers meeting weekly to strategize how to help those who
are experiencing homelessness to move into permanent housing. Many of the individuals we
focus on are living with multiple barriers to housing including disabilities that limit their
ability to earn an income and afford housing on the private market. Without housing designed
to meet their needs and dedicated for individuals at the lowest income levels -- in other words,
permanent supportive housing -- these individuals often have no other option.
As a community, we need to aggressively and ambitiously tackle the issues of inequity and
unattainability pervasive in our housing market. Supporting Housing Catalyst's Mason Place
development is a clear and tangible step the community and the Planning and Zoning Board
can take in an effort to resolve these housing market issues. The community can trust in
Housing Catalyst's ability to successfully develop and operate Mason Place as they have
proven themselves to be an exceptional permanent supportive housing provider through their
management of Redtail Ponds over the past three years that the building has been occupied.
As someone who works and lives in Fort Collins, and who cares deeply about our
community's ability to remain accessible and attainable to people with varying abilities and
income levels, I support Housing Catalyst's proposed Mason Place development and urge the
Planning and Zoning Board to do the same.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Fenley
_______________________________
vanessa.m.fenley@gmail.com
303.720.1236
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Amy Takken
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Midtown Arts Center Redevelopment
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 8:00:43 PM
Dear Mr. Frickey,
I respectfully request that you use the Midtown Arts Center for apartments instead of homeless
housing. My children attend karate at Karate West across the street. The crime rate has
steadily increased in the area since 2015. And there's already Redtail Ponds Supportive
Housing only 1.24 miles away. Perhaps there is another, more suitable location for homeless
housing? Thank you for your consideration!
Amy Takken
atakken@gmail.com
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Lou Anne Yee, KARATE WEST
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Regarding Mason Place
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 9:23:30 PM
Dear Mr. Frickey, and members of City Council:
We own and operate Karate West, located at 3725 S. Mason Street, across the street from
what is now Midtown Arts Center. We will be teaching classes on Thursday during your City Council
meeting so are unable to attend, but would like to express some concerns about the proposal to put
in “Mason Place” for homeless people with mental illnesses. We understand that it is a good thing
to try to help house disabled people who end up without homes. But we don’t think that S. Mason
Street is a good fit for this project. Wouldn’t it be better placed near medical and social services,
rather than in the middle of a business district like this? And why do both of these kind of housing
places have to be in this area of town? We are concerned about the safety of our members,
especially since we have a large number of children enrolled here. Before we built our building here,
we were located on Jefferson St. in Old Town, and had some bad experiences with mentally ill
people at the day shelter downstairs from us, attacking some of our students. We were happy to
move away from that, and don’t want it happening again here. We have heard from some police
officers that there are a lot of calls to Redtail Ponds, and we don’t need that here. While the
representatives from Housing Catalyst were good about coming to us to tell us what they have
planned, the rosy picture they painted is not the reality that we have heard from others. We would
like to see them find a different location for this project.
Thank you,
Lou Anne & Kim Yee
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 21, 2018
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing in support of the Mason Place project, a permanent supportive housing
development.
I am Regional Project Manager with Volunteers of America in Fort Collins and a
longtime resident of Northern Colorado. I work with very low-income homeless or nearly
homeless Veterans and my team helps them get housed in the Northern Colorado area
through the VA funded Supportive Services for Veteran Families program. We have been
helping Veteran families get housed in the area since 2012 and have served well over 600
Veterans and family members combined. We currently participate in the regional
Coordinated Entry Process to help end chronic homelessness and make it rare, short lived
and non-recurring. We have been participating in this process since early 2016 when we
attend Governor Hickenlooper’s Action Lab with other Fort Collins Agencies and
leadership
As you know, affordable housing and homelessness are important issues in our
community. While many local organizations are working to address these challenges,
there is still a significant need for permanent housing to support homeless and low-
income individuals. Last year the Murphy Center for Hope reported serving 2,000
individuals in a single year, most of whom were living in homelessness.
The work I do is across Northern Colorado and Fort Collins has some of the highest
housing costs we come across. Mason Place can help Fort Collins address critical needs
around homelessness and address this issue.
Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable one-bedroom apartments.
The average market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $1,200/month. Affording
an apartment as a single person is simply unattainable for many folks, especially those
who are dealing with trauma, a life crisis, and various disabling conditions. Many of the
Veterans we work with have significant trauma, are disabled, cannot work and are on a
very fixed income. $1200.00 for housing is simply too much given these fixed incomes
and the types of jobs they can get, which are often minimum wage.
Mason Place will serve homeless individuals with a disability, including homeless
veterans, with all 60 units designated for individuals at 0-30% of the area median income
(AMI). Mason Place will offer much needed housing for the community’s most
vulnerable populations with deep AMI targeting.
In addition, a true infill and transit-oriented development opportunity, the site has
convenient access to the MAX Horsetooth Station, a high frequency bus rapid transit
system. The location is ideal for the target population. Directly to the north is a full-
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
service Safeway and a Trader Joe’s grocery store is just a 7-minute walk. Target and
Walmart, as well as other stores and restaurants, are within easy walking distance.
The location also provides excellent bicycle and pedestrian access with close proximity to
the Mason Trail, a north/south route for cyclists and pedestrians, which provides a direct
link to major destinations, activity centers, and to the City's expansive trail network.
Since many of the Veterans we work with don’t have transportation, this is an ideal
location for housing.
On a personal note, I want to also comment that I have lived in a neighborhood where
permanent supportive housing was built. I was a young single mother who walked my
child to school every day. The housing was less than a half a mile from where I lived.
We found that the community was very supportive, embraced the apartments and the
people who lived there, and I did not experience any safety issues nor did any of my
neighbors. In fact, my property value continued to rise after the PSH project was built.
The mission of the Volunteers of America Colorado Branch is to identify and serve the
basic needs of the most vulnerable individuals and families within the community. This
project is in alignment with our mission as affordable housing is a basic need and the
need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Mason Place
is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly
support this project.
Sincerely,
Betsy Sullivan
Northern Colorado Regional Manager
Supportive Services for Veteran Families
Volunteers of America Colorado Branch
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
1
Gretchen Schiager
From: Clay Frickey
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 10:44 AM
To: Gretchen Schiager
Subject: FW: Mason Place Project Feedback
Attachments: crimestatsmap-troutman.jpg; crimestats-troutman.jpg; projectsmap.jpg
Another letter for Mason Place.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Chris Klumph [mailto:chrisklumph@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Mason Place Project Feedback
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Mason Place project.
While I absolutely support efforts to help get veterans and homeless folks back on their feet, I can’t help but think this
location is not the best choice. As a member of the surrounding neighborhood, we’ve already seen a marked increase in
crime, vagrancy, and panhandling since two recent nearby events: the opening of the MAX South Transit Center in 2014 and
the addition of the Redtail Ponds facility in 2015. Crime statistics from the Fort Collins Police back up the fact that crime has
sharply increased in the neighborhood since 2014 (see attached screenshots).
This past Thanksgiving, I found a man hiding in the dark on our backyard deck, which led to Police involvement. In 2016, a
homeless camp was discovered by a neighbor in the water run‐off area directly behind my house, also leading to Police
intervention. I can’t know for sure that these events are related to the MAX and Redtail Ponds being nearby, but it makes
me wary of any additional projects that might possibly attract folks struggling with vagrancy, criminal tendencies, or drug
addictions.
While these people do need help and housing, is there no better alternative location? As you can see from my other
attachment, the Mason Place project would be the third “attraction” in this area for the transient population. I obviously
don’t know all the other plans for Fort Collins development, but in my opinion, our neighborhood has already been
burdened by the MAX and Redtail Ponds developments and would not be served by a third addition.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Chris Klumph
4502 Hibiscus St
Fort Collins, CO 80526
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM 6, MASON PLACE
PUBLIC COMMENT
1
Gretchen Schiager
From: Clay Frickey
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:23 PM
To: Gretchen Schiager
Subject: FW: Mason Place Midtown redevelopment
One more letter for Mason Place.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Karen J Dobroth [mailto:mkdobroth@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Mason Place Midtown redevelopment
Hi Clay,
I’m writing about the Mason Place Supportive Housing complex that is planned for development.
A neighbor recently came to my door to give me information about this and to express her concern, and the concerns of others in our
neighborhood, about this project, which is how I heard about it. Your name is on the info sheet I received with your email, which is
why I am emailing you. I looked up the website for Redtail Ponds and Mason Place and read about the projects. They sound great,
in theory. I have not read any statistics about results or success in accomplishing the goal of helping people help themselves in a
sustainable way once they have housing.
I do believe it’s important to not turn our backs on people in need, to address this problem and provide housing and other services
for homeless, traumatized, physically and/or mentally disabled, and impoverished people who can’t often help themselves. I’m not
sure I feel the Midtown Arts Center area is the best or appropriate place for this particular complex project. Does it allow for or
encourage low-income families, or homeless families with children living in cars, or low-income seniors to apply? Are there any
other areas of town a little farther away from Redtail Ponds that would work as a Supportive Housing community?
My Larkborough neighborhood, and the surrounding Woodlands and Troutman Park neighborhoods, have seen an increase in crime
and suspicious activity in the past couple of years and especially this past year. We have had our vehicles vandalized, neighbors near
the Mason trail open area behind their homes south of us come home to find strangers camped out on their front porch, some
residents have reported seeing a person in a car parked outside their home looking for long periods of time through binoculars into
their windows, and this makes homeowners in the neighborhood very nervous and feel insecure and at-risk. I don’t know if this
problem is related to or the result of the Redtail Ponds project nearby or not. I do know that some neighbors believe it is. I also don’t
know if some of these problems are caused by people coming up from Denver and other areas outside Fort Collins to take advantage
of our community.
After reading the website information on the Redtail Ponds and Mason Place projects I understand the requirements for residents of
these housing complexes. I don’t know the various types of people who apply to live in these local supportive housing complexes,
or the range of behaviors and conditions of the residents, their commitment to improving their lives responsibly, and how this may
affect the surrounding community. I do know that over the past 2-3 years there has been a steady increase in numbers of people and
groups of people standing or hanging out on the corners with cardboard signs in our neighborhood: Mason and Harmony, the
entrance to Walmart on S College, the Mason St entrance into the shopping center where Once Upon A Child and McDonalds are,
Troutman and College, the entrance to King Soopers on JFK, the entrance to Vitamin Cottage/Natural Grocers on Troutman, to
name a few. My heart goes out to these people and I often wonder what their circumstances are. I realize people fear people who
don’t conform to social norms or exhibit socially acceptable behaviors. I wonder how many of these people on the street corners are
from Redtail Ponds, and how many could find support in a way other than asking for money on a street corner, like finding a job. I
have talked to, or tried to talk to, some of these people. One young woman would move quickly through parking lots to sell
beautiful dreamcatchers she makes. One older gentleman told us he has cancer, which one can see in his face, and he feels
abandoned by God. One man who I gave some money to and tried to talk to spent the following 6 or so years sitting on the same
2
particular corner. He would barely talk to me and kept mumbling “God bless”. I wonder about the young Hispanic or Latin
American mother with her 2 young children who stands asking for help at the Whole Foods entrance and the parking lots of grocery
stores.
I do understand the welfare system, I’ve been there.
I understand the affects of losing a job and having difficulty finding work and finding a good paying sustainable job, being a single
parent and being on welfare and other social service programs. I spent years on and off in my 20s and early 30s in this situation. I
put myself through 8 years of undergraduate and graduate college as a divorced single parent, on welfare with medical assistance,
child care assistance, subsidized housing, and food stamps while also working various work-study jobs. Even after graduating from
2 universities with 3 degrees, 2 of them graduate degrees, in what I believed was a solid career, I had difficulty getting good paying
sustainable work in my field. I also know that many on welfare do play the system, take advantage of it, and don’t take initiative to
improve their lives. PTSD is more commonly recognized now and drug dependency is a bigger and more dangerous problem now
than it was then. I agree providing housing, counseling, and assistance for people is necessary and important. It is one important part
of a larger picture and problem.
I’m curious to know what the relationship, if any, between the people standing on the corners with cardboard signs in our
neighborhood, the crime and delinquency in our neighborhoods, and the residents of Redtail Ponds might be. I wonder how many of
the residents in these housing projects take the initiative to apply for work and get jobs or do what they need to do to support
themselves or improve their lives. I know from personal experience that it’s not easy, and that help is necessary. A sense of
belonging is important, so is having a sense of purpose and meaning.
Thank you for the work you do and to everyone who is working to solve this social problem and provide valuable solutions.
Karen Dobroth
CC Reserve Oil Well Locations and Information (from Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Website)
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION
ITEM 7, COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE
OIL WELL LOCATIONS & INFORMATION