HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Special Hearing PacketPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 May 31, 2018
Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado
Ruth Rollins
William Whitley Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881
(Vacant Board Position) on the Comcast cable system
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
May 31, 2018
6:00 PM
Please Note: The Fort Collins Mennonite Church Storage Lockers Minor Amendment item (formerly Agenda
Item #2) has been moved to the June 21st hearing.
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium.
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time
remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended.
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing Agenda
Packet Page 1
Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 May 31, 2018
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2
(Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate
to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Overlay District. The proposed PUD Overlay District
provides for additional flexibility in site design not available through traditional
development procedures, and the ability for extended vested property rights,
in return for the provision of significant public benefits. Under the PUD
process, parcels 50 acres or greater in size are eligible to create a governing,
multi-phased PUD Master Plan that directs and guides subsequent Project
Development Plans (PDP’s) and Final Plans for each development phase.
STAFF ASSIGNED: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
2. Oasis on Olive PDP180003
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to develop a 3 story multi-family, condominium building and
ground level parking on approximately .223 acres of existing vacant land,
located at 310 W. Olive Street. The 7-market rate residential units will be a
mix of 3 1-bedroom units, and 4 2-bedroom units. The building includes
8,468 of living space, and 7 parking spaces provided at the ground level in
an enclosed parking garage. Access to this site will be from W. Olive Street
by means of a one-way private entry drive into the garage, and one-way exit
to Canyon Avenue from a private drive. The site located in the Downtown
(D) zone district, is subject to a Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review.
APPLICANTS: Steve Slezak, Oasis Development, 231 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO
Cathy Mathis, APA, Partner, TB Group, 444 Mountain Ave., Berthoud, CO
OWNER: The Old Howes LLC, 561 York Street, Denver, CO 80209
STAFF ASSIGNED: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Page 2
PUBLIC NOTICE
FOR
SPECIAL MEETING
Date of Posting: 5/3/18
Name of Board/Commission
or Subcommittee: Planning & Zoning Board
Date of Meeting: 5/31/18
Time of Meeting: 6:00 pm
Location of Meeting: City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave., Council Chambers
Reason for meeting:
The board will consider the following agenda items that could not be heard at the
May 17th meeting:
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment
• Oasis on Olive PDP180003
For additional information call: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, 970-224-6174
See the following detailed agenda and packet.
Please Note: The Fort Collins Mennonite Church Storage Lockers Minor Amendment
has been moved to the June 21st hearing.
Packet Page 3
Agenda Item 1
Item #1, Page 1
STAFF REPORT May 31, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
PROJECT NAME
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - LAND USE CODE CHANGES
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2
(Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the
creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goals of the PUD Land Use Code Changes
Staff initiated the creation of a PUD Overlay with the following goals:
1. Add flexibility in site design not available in traditional procedures in return for the provision of significant
public benefits
2. Allows for land use flexibility beyond the underlying zone district use restrictions
3. Ability for extending vested property rights to land use and density, and modifications to development
standards
4. Promotes innovative, high-quality community design
5. Forwards adopted City plans, policies and standards
6. Addresses the unique challenges with large developments constructed in phases
Summary of Proposed Changes
The following Land Use Code changes are proposed. The full set of changes are included in Attachment 1.
LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change
1.3.1 –
Establishment of
Zone Districts
Establishes zone districts Adds Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
1.3.4 – Addition of
Permitted Uses
Describes the purpose of
the Addition of Permitted
use process
Provides that an APU process may be used to add uses to
the zone district underlying the PUD Overlay
Packet Page 4
Agenda Item 1
Item #1, Page 2
LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change
1.4.9 – Rules of
Construction for
Text
Describes Rules of
Construction in the Land
Use Code
Strikes reference to the Planned Development Overlay
District (PDOD).
2.2.10 – Step 10:
Amendments and
Changes of Use
Describes the minor
amendment and change of
use process pertaining to
OPD, PDP’s and any site
specific development plan
Includes the PUD Master Plan in the list of amendable plan
types.
2.2.11 – Step 11:
Lapse
Defines the time limits for
development plan
applications
Adds provisions for the vesting of property rights with
respect to uses, densities, and development and
engineering standards for which variances have been
granted. Defines the duration and frequency of vested
rights extension requests associated with a PUD Master
Plan
2.4.2 – Project
Development Plan
Review Procedures
Defines steps in the Project
Development Plan (PDP)
review process
Expands the application of development standards to the
PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan.
2.15 – Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
Overlay Review
Procedure
Presently occupied by
former Planned
Development Overlay
District (PDOD)
Existing section is repealed and a new procedure for
development occurring within a PUD Overlay is created
that defines applicable steps in the development review
process.
4.29 – Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
District
Presently occupied by
former Planned
Development Overlay
District (PDOD)
Creates the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan standards
Agenda Item 1
Item #1, Page 3
designation is that the regulations for land use, density and design in the underlying zone district still apply to the
PUD unless expressly modified during the Master Plan process.
PUD Master Plan as the Regulating Document
The PUD ordinance requires that developers first create a PUD Master Plan that provides greater detail than
the “bubble diagrammatic” scale found in the City’s existing Overall Development Plan (ODP) process. The
Master Plan must have sufficient detail to serve as the overall guiding vision for the long-term development. At
this Master Plan level, applicants must provide specific requests for elements that will receive entitlement to
long-term vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to
engineering standards. The PUD Master Plan does not expire, but can be terminated or amended through
processes specified in the Land Use Code.
Major components of a PUD Master Plan application include the following:
• list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested
• overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses
• transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation
• location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for
preservation
• architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text
describing architectural design intent
• phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase
• list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan
The decisionmaker for the PUD Master Plan action is dictated by the size of the development. For parcels 640
acres or greater, the City Council makes the decision whether to approve the Master Plan, while parcels of a lesser
size are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review.
Master Plan Followed by Project Development Plans (PDP’s)
After the PUD Master Plan has been approved, each subsequent phase would be reviewed under the existing
Project Development Plan (PDP) and Final Plan processes. PDP applications would be evaluated for consistency
and substantial conformance with the PUD Master Plan. In cases where land uses, densities, and modifications to
Article 3 design standards and engineering standards, such as the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS,) have been approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, the granted modifications/variances correspond
to the PDP approval and no additional modifications or variances would be required.
Minimum Size Threshold for PUD’s
Under the proposed ordinance, parcels must be a minimum of 50 acres in size to qualify for a PUD Overlay, with
the intention that this substantial shift in regulations only apply to larger, multi-phased development. Based on
staff’s property analysis, a total of twenty-four (24) properties would be eligible, along with a handful of additional
properties that could potentially be consolidated to reach the minimum size threshold.
As can be seen through the following chart and map (see Attachment 2), the size and distribution of eligible
properties has an almost linear progression based on parcel size. Further, parcels of 50 acres or more are
concentrated in the Mountain Vista Subarea and in the east and southeast areas of the community, and south of
East Prospect Road, with one lone parcel north of Highway 287 west of Shields Street. Reducing the eligible
parcel size below 40 acres expands the opportunity for PUD’s to be created in the northwest subarea, to the
southeast, southwest, and parcels at the perimeter of the East Mulberry Corridor.
Packet Page 6
Agenda Item 1
Item #1, Page 4
Community Engagement
Feedback was gathered on the proposed code changes through direct correspondence with members of the Fort
Collins development community. Multiple comments were received, some through email and telephone and two
were through written summaries (see Attachment 3).
Concerns raised during the public process principally centered on three categories:
1. The minimum parcel size threshold
2. Lack of definition of “significant public benefit”
3. Term of vested property rights
With respect to the parcel size, all but one of the commenters voiced opposition to the 50-acre minimum parcel
threshold and requested that a lesser minimum be considered. Suggested alternative size thresholds varied from
no minimum size to 25 acres and to several points in between. The common concern was that the community’s
supply of parcels meeting the threshold is so small that few can take advantage of the flexibility afforded through
the PUD process.
An underlying principle of the PUD ordinance is a balance between granted regulatory flexibility and amenities with
improvements that benefit the public. Some commenters have stated the “significant public benefit” criterion is too
broad and should either be more narrowly defined or eliminated in its entirety.
The proposed term of vested property rights for PUD Master Plans has been drafted to be consistent with rights
granted under other entitlement processes. The draft standards provide for a three (3) year vesting period, with
two (2) additional one (1) year extensions granted by the Director, and with additional one (1) year extensions
available through action of the original decisionmaker (City Council or Planning and Zoning Board depending upon
the project scale). Concern has been raised by some that the vesting period should be lengthened given the scale
and complexity often found in PUD’s.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Code Updates
2. PUD Buildable Land Analysis – Qualifying Properties Map
3. Public Comments Received To-Date
Packet Page 7
DRAFT 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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 8
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 9
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 10
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 11
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 12
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 13
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 14
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 15
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 16
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 17
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 18
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 19
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 20
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 21
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 22
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 23
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.
(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
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.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 24
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2
(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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 25
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 26
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 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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 27
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 28
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
6
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(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:
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 29
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
7
(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
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:
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 30
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
8
(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
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 processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan
pursuant to the applicable variance procedures. Variances approved in
connection with a PUD Master Plan shall be applicable to Project
Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 31
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
9
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 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 32
50 Acres
45 Acres
40 Acres
35 Acres
30 Acres
25 Acres
20 Acres
Growth Management Area Boundary
City Limits - Area
PUD Buildable Land Analysis
Qualifying Properties
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 33
Post Modern Development, Inc.
April 30, 2018
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
cgloss@fcgove.com
Re: Comments to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Overlay Draft
Dear Cameron,
This letter summarizes Post Modern Development (“PMD”) and Terra Development Group’s (“Terra”)
initial comments to the draft text of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District that you
circulated on April 19, 2018.
We appreciate you sharing the proposed PUD draft with us, and we believe that having a PUD District
available in Fort Collins will help encourage high quality and creative projects not currently allowed in
standard zone districts. However, as an active developer of residential and mixed-use projects, we do
have several concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed draft language, which are detailed below.
1. Division 2.15(B) – Minimum Size Requirement. The applicability of the PUD only to properties of
50 acres or larger greatly limits its use and function. We only know of a handful of parcels or
possible assemblages within the City’s boundaries that are this large. As a result, the benefits of
the PUD’s flexibility will only be available to certain pockets within the community – this result is
contrary to the City’s goal of creating significant public benefits through PUD Districts.
As an alternative, we would suggest the size limit be changed to 20 acres. A smaller size
requirement would give more projects the option of taking advantage of the PUD planning
mechanism. This is consistent with the standard practices of other Colorado communities. For
example, PUD Districts in the Cities of Loveland and Centennial can apply to property of any size.
In Denver, the minimum PUD size is 10 acres. The 20-acre threshold, will make this tool more
useful for phased projects, developers and the City to apply within Fort Collins.
2. Division 4.29(B)(2) – Objectives. The requirement that development under a PUD District must
provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through a standard zone
district is likely to have a chilling effect on their use. We are concerned that the additional
flexibility in site design will not provide enough of an incentive to overcome the additional costs
created by this requirement. Many developers will see this requirement as a carte blanche for the
City to circumvent traditional rational nexus/rough proportionality analyses and request – or even
demand – unlimited or disproportionate concessions and public improvements. We suggest the
City consider eliminating this requirement. In the event that you choose to keep the enumerated
list of public benefits, we request that some objective criteria and additional detail be added so
that developers are given guidance as to whether their project meets this standard and qualifies
for PUD District prior to going through the time and expense to apply and appear before the
Planning and Zoning Board for a determination. This requirement also presumes that the
increased creativity and improved design afforded by a PUD framework is not, in itself, public
benefit to justify the use of this tool.
3. Division 4.29 (E) – Uses. In the case of certain zoning districts within the City, there exist
allocations of certain primary or secondary uses as percentages of areas or parcels. In order to
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 34
4. facilitate the flexibility of uses (which is a stated purpose of the PUD), we would suggest
additional clarification within the PUD language that these allocations of percentage of uses
within the underlying zone district do not apply to a PUD.
5. Division 4.29(G)(6) – Term of Vested Rights. The mandated expiration of vested rights related to
the uses, densities and modified development standards under a PUD Master Plan should be
removed. This concept conflicts with the City’s existing rules on the term of vested property rights,
which currently say that an extension may be granted without expiration, provided that the City
and developer enter into a development agreement. In addition, removing this limitation is
consistent with the practices of many peer cities, including Boulder and Broomfield, and is
allowed by the Colorado vested rights statute.
If the expiration concept is not removed altogether, it would be more beneficial if the initial vested
rights period could be extended by multiple additional ten-year extensions, rather than one-year
extensions. As a master developer, PMD and Terra know firsthand that large developments can
take years, or even decades, to complete, particularly when economic and market cycles
fluctuate. Investors, lenders, and tenants rely on vested rights in making their decisions to
participate in a project in early stages, relying on the vested right to guarantee that the project can
be completed according to its approved development plans throughout its later stages. It is of
critical importance that vested rights period realistically match the projected pace of development.
Because there is no limit on the length of time for a vested right that can be negotiated in a
development agreement for other developments not using a PUD, this provision places PUD
projects at a disadvantage relative to other types of projects in the City. Developers might elect
to avoid using the PUD process, even if it is the most suitable for a project, if they cannot obtain a
vested right that will accommodate the entire anticipated phasing of a project’s development.
6. Division 4.29(I)(1) – Expiration. Incorporating an automatic 20-year expiration date into all PUD
Master Plans creates uncertainty and adds complexity to the regulatory process. Again, by their
very nature, projects seeking to use the PUD District process are likely more complex, and will
likely have lengthier phasing of development, compared to other types of projects. As proposed,
a developer could plan a large community around the flexible uses and site design offered by the
PUD District, only to have that expire prior to the project being completed. The proposed
mechanisms to extend the life of the PUD are either (i) upon the request of all of the property
owners with the PUD District, or (ii) upon the request of those property owners whose real
property interest are affected. Both of these options create uncertainty that a developer or the
City would be able to extend the PUD if needed or desired.
In the case of a large development, approval by all property owners would be a very difficult bar
to reach. By the time expiration becomes an issue, dozens or even hundreds of parties could
have ownership interests in the property within the PUD. This could include a mix of
homeowners, commercial property owners, governmental entities such as metro districts, and
others. Coordinating them all would be virtually impossible. Even in the event that coordination of
affected property owners is solely required, that will still likely be infeasible. In all cases under
these mechanisms it would be impossible for a developer to know with certainty that he can meet
these thresholds.
If a PUD expires for all or a portion of the PUD District, it would likely create additional problems
for property owners and the City in the form of nonconforming structures, standards and/or uses.
These issues would extend to not only affect the developers, but tenants, lenders or insurers on
the property.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 35
We would request that the expiration be eliminated so that a PUD would solely expire upon the
request of the property owners.
7. Division 4.29(I)(2) – Amendment. The requirement that all owners or all directly affected owners
of property within a PUD approve of any amendment will greatly limit the ability and interest to
utilize the PUD. Since a PUD applies to larger developments that will likely phase over time, we
would envision numerous revisions requested as a PUD area is developed. As properties are
sold and property owners are added within the PUD, a developer will be uncertain that these
thresholds for amendment can be met. The result is that these mechanisms significantly
decrease the interest of developers to utilize the PUD as future flexibility for amendment may be
limited. We do not believe the current approaches are flexible enough. In the case where a
master developer needs to change provisions of the PUD Master Plan to accommodate ongoing
development of a project, we believe it should be specifically be allowed.
We suggest adding that an amendment may be proposed by either a) the majority property owner
within the PUD, or b) any property owner within the PUD with the consent of all adjacent property
owners within the PUD District. We would also request that such amendment process be
handled as a minor amendment process via the City planning department.
We appreciate your ongoing work on this matter and the opportunity to comment on this draft regulation.
Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
JD Padilla
Post Modern Development
Roni Amid
Terra Development Group
Tal Hackmey
Terra Development Group
Jacob Steele
Terra Development Group
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 36
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
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 Master Plan Review
Procedure
A.Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners to achieve
flexibility in site design and the security of extended vesting of
rights in return for significant public benefits not available through
traditional development procedures. Define what the areas of
community benefit could be with a grading system for economic
development, energy and land conservation, social and artistic
values, affordability and others.
B.Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Master Plan is
available to properties of 50 this is too large as there are no 50 acre
sites left within the GMA, therefore it should be 5 -10 acre site
minimal with a qualifier for even smaller infill sites where
appropiate. The entitlement cost are the same for 5,10 acres or 50
acres or greater in size. The motivation for a community benefit and
need for flexibility is greater for a smaller infill site than would be
for a 50 acre greenfield site.
C.Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable. It would great if the staff would actually
conceptualize ideas that would result in a better community
project instead of just quoting permit cost that are irrelevant
at this early stage.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. There could be a
reward to development projects that do the design charrette
process instead of just a small meeting giving notice to the
community of a pending project. The design charrette engages
the community to gather real input that can be useful and it
cost more to put together. If the developer holds a design
charrette it would be great to reward the project with less
submittal requirements as it takes a lot of effort to flush out
area issues and solutions which is really the purpose of a high
submittal requirement standards.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents as described in the development application
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 37
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
submittal master list 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. Need
Flexibility with staff initiated changes if it will make a better
project with a better community benefit.
(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 applications between 10 and 640 acres;
(2)City Council is the decision maker for PUD applications
greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and
Zoning Board recommendation. This process should be
available to used by the local small builders and
developers as the 50 acre minimal standard only helps the
Wall Street type builder developer.
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
Section 4.29(G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all
General Development Standards applicable to the development
proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards
(Article 4) including Division 4.29.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Not applicable. A PUD Master Plan is not a
site specific development plan and does not qualify for vested
property rights pursuant to Section 2.2.11. PUD vested
property rights for uses, densities, and modifications to
development standards expressly identified as vested within a
PUD Master Plan are permitted exclusively pursuant to Section
4.29(G), in substitution of the procedures of Section 2.2.11.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 38
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board
decision on a PUD between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to
City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
(13) Optional Step A (Optional Preapplication Review): Applicants
for review of a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres are
allowed to participate in the following optional review
procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have
completed their conceptual review and neighborhood
meeting but have not submitted a development
application. Such review is intended to provide an
opportunity for applicants to present conceptual
information to the Planning and Zoning Board about the
ways in which they intend to respond to site constraints,
issues of controversy or opportunities related to the
development project. 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 the
affected property owners. All preapplication sessions 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 session and not less
than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the session.
The Board may, but shall not be required to, comment on
the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Board 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 PUD Master Plan review related to all or
part of the property that was the subject of the optional
review. Only (1) optional review session may be requested
for any proposed PUD Master Plan.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 39
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District
(A)Purpose.
(1) Serves as a review procedure for subsequent Project
Development Plans for a large development area governed by
an approved PUD Master Plan.
(2) Substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development
Plan as to property within an approved PUD Master Plan.
(3) Positions large areas of property for phased development.
(4) May provide vesting of uses, density and certain development
standards to the extent expressly set forth in an approved PUD
Master Plan.
(5) 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 strict application of the Land Use Code and engineering
standards.
(6) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land
uses, housing types, lot sizes, densities, and/or supporting non-
residential uses.
(B)Objectives.
(1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large
areas.
(2) In return for flexibility in site design with respect to the
arrangement, heights, and setbacks of buildings, densities,
open space and circulation elements, as well as vesting of
certain uses, densities and development standards,
development under a PUD District must provide significant
public benefits greater than those typically achieved through
application of a standard zone district, including, but not
limited to:
(a)Diversification in the use of land;
(b)Innovation in development;
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 40
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(c)More efficient use of land and energy;
(d) Extent of public amenities as appropriate in light of
the scope of the development; and
(e) Development patterns compatible in character and
design with nearby areas and consistent with the
purpose and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans.
(3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive
development that takes advantage of site characteristics.
(4) Promote coordination and cooperation among property owners
within a large area.
(5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD from
negative impacts.
(6) Provide a development review process that encourages
heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants,
affected property owners, neighbors and City staff.
(C)Applicability.
(1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a
minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for PUD Master Plan
approval.
(2) An approved PUD Master Plan 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 (ODP).
Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Master
Plan may proceed directly to application for Project
Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s).
(4) Unless otherwise specified, all references to vested rights
within Division 4.29 shall mean PUD vested property rights.
(D)Eligibility.
(1) Minimum size 5 - 10 or no minimal acres limit as great
community benefit could come is a small urban plot easier than
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 41
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
larger properties. This process should be made available to the
small local builder/ developers who have our communities best
interest at heart more so than does the Wall Street type
developer. The local talent is also more in tune with the
community desires for more creative socially responsible
solutions to local problems. The huge Wall Street developers
are just selling the same old dream that is generic to the
masses in every other market. The purpose of this process is to
allow for better more creative solutions to troubled site and a
50 acre site is not an infill location it is a greenfield project
and those projects are housing only otherwise to add
commercial and business uses promotes sprawl, which is the
opposite of community beneficial thinking.
(2) Application for PUD approval must be authorized by all owners
of property proposed to be included.
(E)Permitted Uses.
(1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are
permitted within an approved PUD.
(2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district
may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan, and may
be approved to the extent such uses satisfy the following
criteria:
(a)The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD
District provisions set forth in Subsections 4.29(A)and (B)
and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable
subarea and neighborhood plans. These subarea plans are
useful but lack flexibility in zoning and permitted uses. The
infill sites are extremely difficult to develop because they
have more severe problems than does a greenmail site and
therefore needs to allow for more flexible creative
solutions.
(b)The use conforms to the basic characteristics of the
underlying zone district and the other permitted uses in the
zone district to which it is added. I disagree with the above
statement as the underlying zone district is not always an
appropriate planned use for the difficult site. It should be
stated that the infill sites are allowed more flexibility for
creative project solutions if a higher community benefit is
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 42
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
to be reached. Sometime the highest and best use of a site
is not for Urban Estates type lots but rather a community
benefit project of a community farm agricultural project
with some commercial operations like coffee brewing,
bakery, farmers markets and other supporting business that
are not permitted in most zoning designation but have huge
community benefit.
(c)The location and size of the use is compatible with and has
minimal negative impact on the use of adjacent properties.
The above sentence should be more positive in that these
projects should be designed to enhance and collaborate
with the surrounding properties to provide supporting uses
that help create sense of place and purpose.
(d)To the maximum extent feasible, 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
underlying zone district. This is way too restrictive because
it takes away the chance and motivation for creative land
uses will never fall within the permitted uses of the
underlying zoning district. Keeping in mind that this process
is intended for infill sites that have problems and therefore
should be allowed the most flexibility.
(e)The use is warranted by changing conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
property
(f)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use is
compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding
the subject land and is the appropriate use for that land
(g)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise,
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 43
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands
and the natural functioning of the environment.
(F)Prohibited Uses. None.
(G)Vesting of Uses, Density, and Modification of Development
Standards.
(1) PUD vested property rights may be approved as part of a PUD
Master Plan under the provisions of this Division 4.29. The
procedures in this Section 4.29(G) are the exclusive means by
which vested rights may be approved within a PUD Master Plan.
Section 2.2.11 does not apply to vested rights under a PUD
Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific
development plan but is subject to Division 2.13, Vested Rights
and Takings Determinations.
(2) In order to vest rights under a PUD Master Plan, the applicant
must submit an application for such vested rights as a part of
its Development Application submittal. If approved as a part of
a PUD Master Plan by the decision maker, the vested rights
shall be described in the PUD Master Plan Development
Agreement, which shall detail the elements of the PUD Master
Plan which are vested, the term of vesting, and any conditions
of that vesting.
(3) The applicant must enumerate the elements for which it
requests vesting, which may include:
(a)Uses permitted in the underlying zone district and those
approved to be added to the subject property as a part of
an approved PUD Master Plan application.
(b)Densities for permitted residential uses, the application
may request vesting of such uses at established ratios of
dwelling units per acre.
(c)The applicant shall enumerate which specific Land Use
Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use
and development standards are proposed to be modified
and vested, as modified, and the nature of that
modification, in terms sufficiently specific to enable
application of the modified standards to Project
Development Plans and Final Development Plans submitted
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 44
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
subsequent to, in conformance with, and intended to
implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Land Use Code
Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities, is not eligible for
modification.
(4) The applicant shall list, as part of its application, the specific
standards list which it wishes to modify, and the specific
modification, in detail sufficient to enable the application of
such modified standards, if approved as part of the PUD Master
Plan, to later Project Development Plans and Final
Development Plans. The decision maker shall review requests
for the modification of development standards and the vesting
of such modified standards against the following criteria, as
appropriate and applicable to the specific PUD Master Plan
application:
(a) The degree to which modification of the development
standards is consistent with the purpose of the PUD
District as described in Section 4.29.A
(b) The degree to which the modification of the development
standard advances the objectives of the PUD District as
described in Section 4.29.B
(c) Whether the requested modification will significantly
advance the development objectives of the application.
(d) Whether the requested modification is necessary to
achieve the development objectives of the application.
(5) If approved, vesting applies despite later text amendments to
the underlying zone district which remove or revise permitted
uses or otherwise alter or revise permitted densities and
development standards.
(6) Term of vested rights: Uses, densities, and modified
development standards which are approved for vesting under
this Section shall be vested for a period not to exceed ten (10)
years from the date of approval of the PUD Master Plan.
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
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 45
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any
additional extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the
decision maker for the PUD Master Plan, 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
pursuing development under the approved PUD Master Plan, or
(b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations
unique to the property, completing development 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 decision
maker for the PUD Master Plan.
(7) Upon the expiration of the term of a vested right, the use,
density, or development standard to which the vested right
applied shall remain available for utilization. However, such
use, density, or development standard is subject to
amendment or elimination pursuant to Subsection (I)(8) of this
Division.
(H)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 common review procedures, Section 2.15.
(2) Criteria for approval of a PUD Master Plan:
(a)That the application achieves the purpose and objectives of
Sections 4.29 A and B;
(b)That the application will ensure superior urban design
within the subject property in excess of development under
the standards applicable to the underlying zone district;
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 46
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(c)That the application will ensure enhanced public and
private infrastructure design, including the design of private
residential, commercial and industrial structures at a level
of quality significantly above that merely required by
compliance with uniform codes and development standards;
(d)That the application will ensure compatibility and/or the
enhancements of the subject property with adjacent
properties in design and use, as well as public infrastructure
and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage,
trails, and utilities; and
(e)That the application will result in a community benefit
contribution development projects that are in the spirit and
intended purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These public
benefit contribution and enhancement type projects will
not be restricted by outdated plans but will become timely
updated amendments incorporated into the comprehensive
planning strategies. Old and Outdated plans should not be
the driving force for project compliance during changing
times. The average age of the Fort Collins demographic is
29 years old and getting younger so they don’t want big
hoses and yards they want a cheaper better way of living
together in community that allows for flexibility in life
pathways. Community! Community! Community!
(I)Extension, Amendment, Expiration, and Termination of a PUD
Master Plan.
(1)PUD Master Plans may be established for an initial period not
to exceed twenty (20) years.
(2)Vested rights to uses, densities, and/or modified development
standards within an approved PUD Master Plan are subject to
the term established for those rights under subsection 4.29(G)
(6).
(3)Applicant must sign an agreement acknowledging the limited
term of the PUD Master Plan, and, if granted, the term of the
vested rights, the absence of any right to rely on the PUD
Master Plan or the vested rights beyond the approved terms for
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 47
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
the same, and indemnifying the City for any claim related to
their operation, enforcement, or expiration.
(4)Upon the request of the property owners, the Council may
terminate the PUD Master Plan.
(5)When the PUD Master Plan expires or is terminated, the
overlay designation on the zoning map is removed and the
authority of the underlying zoning regulations is reestablished
in total.
(6)Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or
termination of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1,
Division 1.6.
(7)An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended, or its
established expiration date may be extended, under the
following alternative procedures:
(a)Upon the request of all property owners within the
District an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended
by processing of an application in the same manner as
an original request.
(b)Upon the request of those property owners whose real
property interests are directly affected, the Director
may approve a minor amendment to the PUD Master
Plan.
(8)The City may initiate and impose an amendment or
termination of an approved PUD Master Plan under the
procedure set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 for zoning
map amendments. No City initiated amendment or
termination of an approved PUD Master Plan shall amend,
modify, or terminate any vested right approved in connection
with such PUD Master Plan earlier than the expiration date of
such vested right.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 48
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District 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 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, 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 not a site specific development
plan.
PUD vested property right shall mean the right to utilize a use, density,
or development standard specified in an approved PUD master plan
during the term specified in such PUD Master Plan.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 49
DRAFT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Proposed Application Requirements
(1) written explanation of the proposed development at a
conceptual level
(2) preliminary plans at concept review level
(3) submittal information from master list
(4) list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added,
modified, and/or vested pursuant to subsections 4.29(E) and
4.29(G)
(5) map of the proposed application boundaries including all lots,
tracts, out lots and rights-of-way
(6) list of all property owners
(7) written consent from all owners
(8) list of all current and proposed special districts serving the
property
(9) Written statement explaining how the proposed PUD Master
Plan complies with or enhances the Comprehensive Plan and
any other applicable, adopted plans.
(10)PUD Master Plan specifying the type and extent of
development proposed including the following components:
• overall site plan indicating the intensity and general
configuration of the proposed uses
• transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle
and pedestrian circulation
• location of open space, natural habitat and features,
floodways and other areas designated for preservation
• architectural concept plan including renderings,
photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing
architectural design intent.
• phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each
phase
• list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD
Master Plan
(11)listing of off-site infrastructure improvements and estimated
costs
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 50
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT May 31, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
PROJECT NAME
OASIS ON OLIVE PDP#180003
STAFF
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a 3 story multi-family, condominium building and
ground level parking on approximately .223 acres of vacant land, located at 310
W. Olive Street. The 7-market rate residential units will be a mix of 3 1-bedroom
units, and 4 2-bedroom units. The building includes 8,468 of living space, and 7
parking spaces provided at the ground level in an enclosed parking garage.
Access to this site will be from W. Olive Street by means of a one-way private
entry drive into the garage, and one-way exit to Canyon Avenue from a private
drive. The site located in the Downtown (D) zone district, is subject to a Type II
Planning and Zoning Board Review.
APPLICANTS: Steve Slezak, Oasis Development, 231 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO
Cathy Mathis, APA, Partner, TB Group, 444 Mountain Avenue, Berthoud, CO
OWNER: This Old Howes LLC, 561 York Street, Denver, CO 8020
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to
approve the Oasis on Olive P.D.P. #180003.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Oasis on Olive Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) complies with the applicable requirements of the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
• The P.D.P. complies with the related Downtown Plan.
• The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration.
• The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.16, Downtown (D) zone district.
• The P.D.P. complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards.
COMMENTS:
1. Context and Background:
Packet Page 51
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 2
The subject triangular block is in the Canyon Avenue sub district of the Downtown zoning district; and the subject
property is at the south edge of the block. Facing blocks to the north, east and south are also zoned Downtown,
and the adjacent block to the west is zoned Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB), which is intended for areas
that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial- use areas or higher traffic
zones.
With regards to historic preservation, the subject parcel at 310 W. Olive Street is adjacent to several designated
and individually eligible buildings. The owner of the subject property also owns the two buildings to the east,
located at 227 and 231 S. Howes Street. This lot was created from their two backyards.
Project Vicinity Map
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Use
North Downtown (D) 223 S. Howes St. Offices, and Cortina
Mixed-Use Building at 224 Canyon Ave
South Downtown (D) Federal Building and Post Office at 301 S.
Howes St.
East Downtown (D) 231 S. Howes St. Offices, and 227 S.
Howes St. Offices
West Downtown (D) 316 W. Olive St. Office, and 320 W. Olive
St. Offices
Zoning History (most recent to past)
In March of 1997, the City of Fort Collins implemented the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan called City Plan.
This implementation involved re-zoning the City into new zone districts with certain exceptions for developed
properties that were not anticipated to re-develop. The zoning for this property continued to be in the Downtown
Packet Page 52
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 3
Zone District (D).
The area surrounding this property was part of the original Town Site Plat.
2. Downtown Plan:
The Downtown Plan update adopted in 2017, provides the policy guidance for land use in the area. The
Downtown Plan identifies this property and nearby blocks as part of the Canyon Avenue Sub-district.
The design of new buildings will reinforce positive existing characteristics of the area to clarify its identity. The
massing on new taller buildings will depend on a combination of landscape setbacks and upper floor step-backs to
mitigate impacts of height upon neighborhood character and any historically significant smaller structures.
Related Plan Policies:
Principle UD 2: Allow taller buildings (over three stories) in appropriate character sub-districts while
maximizing compatibility through appropriate design.
Policy UD 4a: New Buildings/Additions to Designated and Significant Buildings. Design new construction
adjacent to historic buildings and additions to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards
and local preservation standards.
The P.D.P. 3-story multi-family building is well below the maximum building height requirement of 5-6 stories. The
design of the building includes high quality materials and finishes, architectural articulation and other compatible
design components, similar with abutting existing buildings on block.
3. Compliance with Article 4.16 - Downtown (D) District Standards:
A) Purpose. The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and
cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided
into three (3) sub-districts. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to
encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of
history, human scale and pedestrian-oriented character.
Section (B) (2) Permitted Uses
Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the Downtown zone, subject to Planning and Zoning Board Type II
Review. The P.D.P. is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district, in that it includes higher density
housing within walking distance to nearby commercial and transit service along Mason Street MAX Line and
Downtown.
Prohibited Uses (Not Applicable)
(D) Land Use Standards
(1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires a landscaped setback for all block faces west of Mason
Street.
The P.D.P. provides an approximate 20.6 feet landscape setback from face of street curb to right-of-way and
property line, and additional 7.2 feet setback from property line to proposed building front wall. The contextual
front setback for the W. Olive block face is not consistent. From the right-of-way/property line to existing buildings
along this block face, the dimension ranges from 0-9 feet. The existing parkway tree lawn with large Oak trees is
maintained fronting this property. The existing landscaping is enhanced with new plantings between back of
sidewalk and proposed building.
Packet Page 53
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 4
These landscaped setbacks for this block face demonstrate a generous landscaped edge along the street,
consistent with standards and enhancing the transition between the west side neighborhood and downtown.
(2) Dimensional standards.
(a) Maximum height of buildings in the Canyon Avenue sub-district shall not exceed 5-6 stories, or
85 feet in height.
The P.D.P. multi-family building is 3-stories, or approximately 39 feet in height, including an at grade parking
garage.
Section 4.16 (D) (5) Building Character and Facades
(b) Outdoor Activity
Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and
courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible.
The P.D.P. multi-family building includes individual balconies for each unit and common landscaped yard space
on site.
(c) Exterior Façade Materials
All street-facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building.
Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-
cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals, architectural fiber cement siding or
any combination thereof.
The P.D.P. street-facing building façade includes brick and cut-stone veneer, architectural metal panel, and
three-coat cement stucco siding (to match existing houses at 223, 227, and 231 Howes St.).
4. Compliance with Article Three - Applicable General Development Standards:
The P.D.P. is in compliance with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant
comments provided:
Section 3.2.1(C) (D) - Landscaping and Tree Protection
Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to
the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site.
The PDP protects existing large street trees along Olive Street.
All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian use and vehicular access are to be landscaped per a fully
developed landscape plan. Key components are generous streetscape areas along Olive Street, in
compliance with standards for street trees in parkways, landscaped setback areas, and landscape
courtyard on site.
Section 3.2.1(E) (6) - Screening.
The south façade of the building will be screened with landscape planting and fencing. The south and north
building facades will be screened at ground level with planting areas and solid 6’ wood fencing. Trash and
recycling containers are located within the covered parking level of the building and will be screened from view
Packet Page 54
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 5
outside of this building.
Section 3.2.2 - Access Circulation and Parking
In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development Standards described in this section, the
access, parking and circulation system provided with the project is adequately designed with regard to safety,
efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, both within the development and to and from
surrounding areas and transit.
Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities
The minimum bicycle parking space requirement is one bike space per bedroom for multi-family residential. The
P.D.P. includes 11 bedrooms, with a total of 4 fixed-bike parking and 7 covered bike parking required. The P.D.P.
provides a total of 11 bike parking spaces provided (4-fixed, 7-enclosed).
Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Required Number of Off-street Parking Spaces
Minimum off-street parking quantities required for the project are based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling
unit for the multi-family dwellings. The project includes 3 1-bedroom units (3 x 1.5 spaces = 4.5) and 4 2-bedroom
units (4 x 1.75 spaces = 7), with a total of 11.5 (12) off-street parking spaces, including a minimum of 1 handicap
space required. A reduction in the number of required parking spaces is permitted in the Transit Oriented
Development Overlay Zone (TOD), which this project is located near the MAX Route. Based on the TOD
calculation, (3 x .75 = 2.25 spaces), and (4 x 1 = 4 spaces) a minimum of 6.25 (6) parking spaces are required.
The P.D.P. provides a total of 7 parking spaces (7 covered spaces including1 handicap stall), exceeding the
minimum requirements.
Section 3.2.3 - Solar access, orientation, shading
All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations and must not deny
adjacent properties access to sunshine.
The proposed building is designed to avoid undue shading of adjacent property and could accommodate active
and/or passive solar installations. The existing Cortina building to the north is six stories in height.
Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting
A) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to focus on the actual physical effects of lighting, as well as the
effect that lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting shall be evaluated in the
development review process to ensure that the functional and security needs of the project are met in a
way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood.
The P.D.P. provides only outside building lighting. All fixtures will be down- directional, full cutoff, residential scale
fixtures. No foot candle levels will exceed one-tenth as measured 20 feet from property lines as required under this
standard.
Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures
The P.D.P. provides building trash and recycling facilities within the at-grade parking level that are enclosed and
fully screened from the outside area.
Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources
Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for new building construction where the
surrounding neighborhood context includes designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of.
The proposed project is adjacent or in close proximity to several such historic properties. Therefore, the project
must comply with Section 3.4.7.
Packet Page 55
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 6
At its May 16, 2018 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the
development project known as Oasis on Olive (PDP180003). The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted
the following motion on a vote of 5-1 (Hogestad, Wallace absent; Dunn - nay).
“That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Oasis on
Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code
Section 3.4.7 for the following reasons, so long as the conditions [below] are satisfied:
• The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic
properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore complies with 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B)
General Standard.
• The project design’s overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in
the defined area of adjacency, and therefore, complies with 3.4.7(F)(1). The project’s massing
strategy and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly
adjacent historic resources.
• The project complies with 3.4.7(F)(2) through the use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms
and similar roof pitches to the historic resources. Additionally, the projecting garage on Olive
Street is similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building.
• The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic
materials, and therefore complies with 3.4.7(F)(3).
• The focal and pedestrian points between the PDP gardens and the historic lots will be maintained,
and no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes which
this lot was historically associated with. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic
buildings’ setting and association, and so complies with 3.4.7(F)(4).
• The purposeful omission of fencing between the new and historic lots significantly helps to retain
and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. To the
extent possible the historic rose beds and gardens will remain. Replacement trees will be
approved according to the requirements of the City Forester. For these reasons, the project
complies with 3.4.7(F)(5).
Conditions:
1. Provide an identifiable entrance with a door into the building; if from a design standpoint that is
not feasible, then the LPC would accept an identifiable entry into the site (to comply with
3.4.7)(F)(2)).
2. Horizontal elements such as the roofline facia should align across the building (to comply with
3.4.7)(F)(2)).
3. The rose garden should be relocated to a location where it will get adequate exposure to the sun
so that the roses thrive; and the location should be in a place where it is a prominent feature of the
site (to comply with 3.4.7)(F)(5)).
4. The current conditions and location of the historic rose garden will be documented before
relocation (to comply with 3.4.7)(F)(5)).
In explaining her vote in opposition to the motion, Ms. Dunn noted that she supported the project; and that she
supported the conditions number 2, 3, and 4 (above), but felt that the design with the metal arch as proposed in
Option A already complies with the Code.
The Commission stated that it greatly appreciated the use of authentic Masonville stone on the project.
In response to the LPC conditions, the applicant is providing documentation for addressing the four conditions. The
attached LPC Option A addresses condition 1 (identifiable building entry, and condition 2 (horizontal elements
alignment). The attached revised Landscape Plan enlargement addresses condition 3 (rose garden location). The
LPC condition 4 will be addressed in construction notes on plan and or Development Agreement.
Packet Page 56
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 7
Section 3.5.1(B) (C) (E) (F) - Building Project and Compatibility
A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational
characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the
context of the surrounding area.
This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established architectural character in the general
area. The standard also states that, where the architectural character is not definitively established, new projects
should establish an enhanced standard of quality.
Staff finds no predominant architectural character in the area. Buildings vary from older single-story buildings used
primarily for offices along S. Howes Street and W. Olive Street, to the 5-6 story Cortina residential building to the
north and Federal building to the south. The Downtown zone envisions potential long- term redevelopment with
mixed-use multi-story buildings emphasizing pedestrian interest to establish an enhanced standard of quality. This
is evident in the specific height limits set for the block at 5-6 stories.
The P.D.P. incorporates similar architectural design elements and building form as adjacent buildings and provides
to a certain extent a transition from the taller Cortina project to existing one story buildings on the same block.
Section 3.5.1(B) requires that new developments have a design that is complementary to the existing developed
area.
The project includes brick and stone veneer on the ground floor as a defining feature, with other building materials
such as cement stucco and wood trim. The remainder of the building includes significant modulation and detail
features to create visual interest and break down the massing proportions and outdoor spaces into compatible
scale. Upper stories use a combination of brick, architectural metal panels and cement stucco materials similar to
existing buildings in the adjacent area.
Section 3.5.1(C) requires that buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and
subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the block face. The other
structures are single-story houses, with the exception of the 6-story mixed use Cortina building at the north end of
the block face.
The proposed building is three stories and incorporates extensive modulation, terracing, and recessed portions to
reduce the sheer mass. These aspects include a strong change in material from the heavier brick base portion to
lighter metal panel and cement stucco siding.
Section 3.5.2 (D) requires every front façade with a primary entrance shall face a connecting walkway, no more
than 200 feet from a street sidewalk.
The P.D.P. includes one dwelling unit with primary entrance facing Olive Street, and remaining dwelling units with
primary entrance faces the connecting walkway to street with a distance of 39 feet to street sidewalk, complying
with this standard.
Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements
(A) Purpose. In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely
accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be
provided by the development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service (LOS)
standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation.
The anticipated change in traffic volume is considered to be nominal. The intersections near the site operate at an
acceptable level of service and the sidewalks around the site are built to the current design standard.
Packet Page 57
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 8
Section 3.8.30 (F) (3-7) - Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings
Roofs
The P.D.P. provides primary sloped roofs that are articulated through a variation of in height and massing. The
secondary roofs provide transitions over entrances, porches, dormers, stair tower and other architectural
projections.
The proposed multi-family building incorporates the following design elements for facades and walls:
Variation of building wall colors
Street facing building entrances at the ground level
Articulation of facades and walls including projections, recesses, covered balconies and similar features
Use of a variety of building materials such as brick and stone veneer, architectural grade metal panels,
cement stucco and wood trim finishes.
5. Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project on February 22, 2018. A summary of this meeting is
attached. Those attending the meeting were from the general area surrounding the project and expressed the
following primary concerns:
The most notable concern from neighbors was potential spill-over parking in neighborhood if not enough off-street
parking is provided. Staff explained that this project is within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone
(TOD), allowing for a reduced number of parking spaces since it is in close proximity to the MAX transit route.
Some neighbors asked about how this project design is compatible with adjacent historic homes on block, while
recognizing a mix of architecture with other buildings in area including the Cortina Mix-Use Building and Federal
Post Office as examples.
A few property owners to the west questioned if there will be any access impacts on their properties with private
drive design and curb-cut expansion on Canyon Ave.
6. Recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission
At its May 16, 2018 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 5-1 (two members absent,
one - nay), to forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed PDP. A memo is attached summarizing their
discussion and findings.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the Oasis on Olive P.D.P, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The P.D.P. complies with the Downtown Plan.
B. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration.
C. The proposed land use, multi-family dwellings, is a permitted land use in the Downtown (D) zone, subject
to Planning and Zoning Board review.
D. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable criteria of the Downtown zone district standards of Article Four.
E. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three, including
Section 3.4.7, so long as the recommended four conditions from the Landmark Preservation Commission
are addressed.
Packet Page 58
Agenda Item 2
Item #2, Page 9
.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Oasis on Olive_3D Views (PDF)
2. Oasis on Olive_A1 of 2 (PDF)
3. Oasis on Olive_A2 of 2 (PDF)
4. Oasis on Olive - Utility Plan (2018-05-16) (PDF)
5. SHT 1_Oasis on Olive LS Plan_5-1-18 (PDF)
6. SHT 2_Oasis on Olive LS Plan_5-1-18 (PDF)
7. Oasis on Olive Site Plan-5-2-18 (PDF)
8. OasisOnOlive - Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF)
9. LPC Findings of Fact_Oasis on Olive (PDF)
10. Oasis on Olive - LPC Option A_5-21-2018 (PDF)
Packet Page 59
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 60
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 61
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 62
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 63
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 64
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 65
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 66
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 67
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 68
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 69
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 70
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 71
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 72
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 73
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 74
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 75
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 76
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 77
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 78
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 79
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 80
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 81
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 82
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 83
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 84
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 85
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 86
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 87
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 88
WEST OLIVE STREET
CANYON AVENUE
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
PORTION LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 92 PORTION LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 92
PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 92
PREPARED FOR
PROJ. NO.
DATE:
SCALE (H):
SCALE (V):
CHECKED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
PROJECT NAME
OASIS ON OLIVE
312 W. OLIVE STREET
UTILITY PLAN
03/14/2018
1"=10'
N/A
JTC
RA
1335-176-00
4 of 5
THIS OLD HOWES, LLC
561 YORK STREET
DENVER, CO 80209
PHONE: 970.484.5907
CONTACT: STEVE SLEZAK
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION
CENTER OF COLORADO
1-800-922-1987
or 8-1-1
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE
MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
CHECKED BY:
Date
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Parks and Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Stormwater Utility
Water & Wastewater Utility
City Engineer
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED:
Environmental Planner
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
SHRUB BED AREAS TO RECEIVE MINIMUM
2"- 4" COBBLE OVER WEED BARRIER FABRIC
SMOOTH RIVER COBBLE
TURF AREA
STEEL EDGER
SHREDDED WOOD MULCH
SHRUB BEDS
Ligustrum vulgare, 'Cheyenne'
CHEYENNE PRIVET
Frangula alnus, 'Columnaris'
BUCKTHORN TALL HEDGE
Centranthus Ruber
VALERIAN RED
4'
4'
2'
4'
4'
2'
5 Gallon
5 Gallon
1 Gallon WELL ROOT
4
3
FU
W
FU
W
85 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS -
21 PERENNIALS / VINES / GROUND COVERS
Amelanchier alnifolia, 'Regent'
3 REGENT SERVICEBERRY 5' 5' 5 Gallon
FU
W
2
Hechera sanguinea, 'Splendens'
3 CORAL BELLS, RED 2' 2' 1 Gallon WELL ROOT
Paeonia lactiflora cultivars
PEONY SELECTIONS 3' 3' 1 Gallon
3 WELL ROOT
Iris siberica, 'Caesar's Brother'
3 IRIS BLUE SIBERIAN 2' 2' 1 Gallon WELL ROOT
10
Euonymus kiatutschovica, 'Manhattan'
3 EUONYMUS, MANHATTAN 4' 4' 5 Gallon
FU
W
Rosa, varieties
14 ROSE SP. 3' 3' 5 Gallon
FU
W
Hedera helix, 'Thorndale'
ENGLISH IVY, 'THORNDALE' 3' 3' 1 Gallon
WELL ROOT
Hemerocallis Cultivars
3 DAYLILLY CULTIVARS 2' 2' 1 Gallon WELL ROOT
GROUND COVER VARIETIES TO BE PLANTED IN RAIN GARDEN
POSSIBLE VARIETIES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
x Sedum Hybridum
STONE OAKLEAF STONECROP
OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK.
CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP
GROUND COVER & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL
& 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY
WATER SETTLE
SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)
3" MIN.
2"
AWAY FROM FOLIAGE
EXISTING
SOIL
FOR SHRUBS
THAN DIA. OF
TO BE 6" LARGER
PLANTING HOLE
ROOTBALL FOR
DIA. OF ROOTBALL
12" LARGER THAN
GROUNDCOVER.
KEEP MULCH LAYER
TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1"
HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE
CEDAR MULCH RING TO BE TWICE
DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL - 2" DEPTH
MULCH - SEE NOTES - 5" DEPTH
MAXIMUM
TRUNK
TREE
2" MULCH
12" MIN.
SECTION
12" MIN.,
TYP.
NOTE:
CEDAR MULCH
TREE RING SHALL
BE 36" DIA.
BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3
COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER
SETTLE
TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE
ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC
PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY
THAN FINISH GRADE
TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER
EXISTING SOIL
SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)
DRIVE TWO (2) T-POST STAKES PER
TREE.
REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP
AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP
PLAN
THAN DIA. OF
24" GREATER
ROOTBALL
FINISH GRADE
T-POST
TREE TRUNK
WIRE, TYP.
Je
Li
Pine
St
Trimble
Ct
S Mason St
S Howes St
Olive St
S Sherwood St
S Meldrum St
S Loomis Ave
W Mountain Ave
LaPorte Ave
Canyon Ave
227 SOUTH HOWES STREET
SCALE 1" = 10'-0"
0 10' 15' 20'
NORTH
1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO
THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY
CHANGES TO THE PLANS.
2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR
STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET
IMPROVEMENTS.
3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND
DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION.
4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW
FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT
ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE
PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH
AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH
SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES.
5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A
PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS.
6. [IF APPLICABLE -INCLUDE LANGUAGE FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH
PDP/ODP].
7. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE
WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND
UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION.
8. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE
APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY
SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY.
9. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST
PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.
10. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED.
11. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE
PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING
SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL
ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE
THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE.
12. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND
TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY A
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE
AREAS.
13. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Oasis on Olive – Project Development Plan
Neighborhood Meeting Notes (2/22/2018)
Overview
City Staff:
Pete Wray, Project Planner
Anna Simpkins, Planning Technician
Applicant:
Steve Slezak, Developer
David Johnson, RE/MAX
Neighborhood Meeting Date: February 22, 2018
Proposed Project
The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to share the developer’s proposal, and for staff to
document comments received from attendees to be shared with Decision maker as part of
record.
A formal PDP application has not been submitted so this is early in the development review
process.
Proposed project includes a 3-story multi-family development on a recently subdivided 3rd lot
behind both 227 and 231 S. Howes Street properties.
The proposal building includes 7-condominium units for sale at market rates; 3 one-bedroom
units, and 4 two-bedroom units.
Eight on-site parking spaces are proposed at ground level in enclosed garage.
Primary access to the site will be taken from Olive St. with a second exit onto Canyon Ave.
The property is in the Downtown (D) zone; there is no minimum or maximum dwelling units per
acre for residential in the D zone. The property is also within the Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) overlay zone.
The proposed building is 3 stories.
The proposed project is subject to a Type 2 Hearing, with the Planning and Zoning Board acting
as the final decision-maker.
Applicant Presentation
The developer owns both 227 and 231 S Howes properties; this lot was created from
their two backyards.
The proposed building will be 3 stories but is essentially the same height in feet as the peak of
the roof at 231 S Howes St.
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
Planning Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 93
Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Oasis on Olive Page 2
231 S Howes is a designated Fort Collins Landmark.
The Landmark Preservation Commission will hear this project on March 21, and April 18, 2018.
Questions/Comments and Answers
Development Review Process:
Do projects sometimes get stopped because of a neighborhood meeting?
Pete Wray explained that feedback at a neighborhood meeting is important and an applicant
could address issues and concerns at this early stage in the review process and refine the
project design accordingly. The Planning and Zoning board will review the project for
compliance with the Fort Collins Land Use Code. All public comment received at the meeting
will be included in the record for the Planning and Zoning Board to review. Some projects may
not move forward or get approved if the project is not in compliance with requirements of the
Land Use Code. Neighborhood input often highlights issues or requirements that are not being
met, giving an applicant opportunity for revising plans as needed.
What are the different public hearing types?
Pete Wray explained that the type of review for a hearing is based on the proposed use by zone.
This project will be a Type 2 Hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board acting as the final
decision-maker, based on the proposed multi-family use.
Other projects go through a Type 1 Administrative Hearing, where a Land Use Attorney from
outside of Fort Collins acts as the decision-maker.
The decision-maker in both cases is reviewing for compliance with the Land Use Code. The
Planning and Zoning Board decides the night of the hearing, while the Administrative hearing
officer has 10 days to render a decision. Both types are formal public hearings where the public
can provide comment.
What is the density for the Downtown (D) zone?
Pete Wray explained that there is no minimum or maximum dwelling unit per acre requirement in
the Downtown (D) zone like there is in residential zone districts around the City. Other projects
within the Downtown (D) zone (Penny Flats, Old Town Flats, Cortina, etc.) have a much higher
density than other residential zoned projects.
Will there be meetings about the proposed updates for the Downtown (D) code?
The proposed code update for the Downtown (D) zone represent an extension of the adopted
Downtown Plan (March 2017) as part of on-going implementation. Additional public meetings and
outreach events will be scheduled as the proposed updates are refined, before the final proposal
goes to City Council.
The first public outreach event is scheduled for Wednesday, February 27, 2018 at 6:00pm in the
Walnut Ballroom at the Elizabeth Hotel (111 Chestnut St).
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 94
Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Oasis on Olive Page 3
Historic Review:
Are both properties along Howes designated Fort Collins Landmarks?
The applicant explained that he owns both 227 and 231 S Howes St but only 231 S Howes St is
designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. The two garages that previously stood where this building
is proposed were reviewed through the demolition/alteration process and it was determined that
they did not have historic significance.
Why is this building only 3 stories when the zone allows 5-6 stories or 85’ on this block?
The applicant explained that the Landmark Preservation Commission has a lot of sway since
this project is adjacent to a designated Fort Collins Landmark. The proposal for this site has
evolved over the last few years with LPC input. The architect has tried to bring in features found
on nearby historic buildings including roof form, window size and pattern, and height, to try and
integrate design features found on designated and historic-age buildings without copying.
Parking:
Where will the owners park?
The applicant explained that 8 off-street parking spaces are included in the proposal at ground
level, tucked under living units above within the building footprint. The enclosed garage will
include a garage door on Olive St and a garage door for the rear exit onto Canyon Ave.
It was stated at the meeting that the Downtown zone does not include any minimum parking
requirements.
CLARIFICATION FROM THE MEETING: In 2014, the City adopted new minimum parking
requirements for residential buildings in the Downtown (D) zone. The project is within the
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone so parking requirements are lower than
other areas within the city:
# of
Bedrooms
Spaces required
within TOD
# of units
proposed
1 .75 3
2 1 4
1-br unit = 0.75 parking spaces/DU x3
2-bedrpoom unit = 1 space/DU x 4
Total Requirement = 6.25 spaces
Total Proposed = 8 spaces
The proposed project complies with the parking requirements for residential projects in the
Downtown (D) zone. These requirements were implemented in 2014.
[Some of the parking discussion from the meeting was omitted with this clarification.]
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 95
Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Oasis on Olive Page 4
General:
What is the area shown between the rose gardens and Olive St?
The applicant explained that they are currently working with a civil engineer to design the site;
the location will likely serve as stormwater detention with adjacent landscaping.
What is the average square footage of the condos?
The applicant explained that the square footage varies by unit; there is one unit on the ground
floor that is handicap accessible. The second and third floors each have three units ranging
from 1,000-1,300 square feet. All units will have at least one outside deck.
What is the expected price point for one of the units?
The applicant’s real estate representative explained that the units will start in the low $700ks
and go up depending on the unit. The units will have high-end finishes and buyers will have a
finish allowance package to finish the unit as they choose.
What is the timeframe for this project.
The applicant explained that he hoped to have the plan reviewed and approved, expecting
permits in June or July. Construction is expected to last 14 months after ground-breaking.
How tall is this building compared with the landmarked building at 231 S Howes?
The applicant explained that the 2-story building at 231 S Howes sits almost 5 feet above the
curb and the peak of the roof measures around 40 feet from the top of the curb. The stair tower
of the proposed 3 story building measures 40’ tall with the bulk of the building slightly below.
Pete Wray explained that the Landmark Preservation Commission will review the project and
could have comments related to building design modifications.
Where are trash and recycle located?
The applicant explained that trash and recycle will be enclosed within the building along the
west wall at the ground floor.
Do you have bike racks on the property?
The City of Fort Collins requires 1 bike parking space per bedroom. The proposal includes
enclosed bike parking within the building at the ground floor.
Will the property have an HOA?
The applicant explained that the property will have an HOA.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Page 96
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 22, 2018
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
TH: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Pete Wray, City Planner
FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Pertaining to Oasis on Olive (PDP180003)
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or
districts, the Planning and Zoning Board shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written
recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission.
At its May 16, 2018 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the
development project known as Oasis on Olive (PDP180003). The Landmark Preservation Commission
adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-1 (Hogestad, Wallace absent; Dunn - nay).
“That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Oasis
on Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7 for the following reasons, so long as the conditions [below] are satisfied:
• The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic
properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore complies with 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B)
General Standard.
• The project design’s overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in
the defined area of adjacency, and therefore, complies with 3.4.7(F)(1). The project’s massing strategy
and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic
resources.
• The project complies with 3.4.7(F)(2) through the use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms
and similar roof pitches to the historic resources. Additionally, the projecting garage on Olive Street is
similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building.
• The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic
materials, and therefore complies with 3.4.7(F)(3).
• The focal and pedestrian points between the PDP gardens and the historic lots will be maintained,
and no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes which this
lot was historically associated with. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’
setting and association, and so complies with 3.4.7(F)(4).
• The purposeful omission of fencing between the new and historic lots significantly helps to retain
and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. To the extent
possible the historic rose beds and gardens will remain. Replacement trees will be approved according
to the requirements of the City Forester. For these reasons, the project complies with 3.4.7(F)(5).
Conditions:
1. Provide an identifiable entrance with a door into the building; if from a design standpoint that
is not feasible, then the LPC would accept an identifiable entry into the site (3.4.7)(F)(2).
2. Horizontal elements such as the roofline facia should align across the building (3.4.7)(F)(2).
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9
Pl
anning, Development & Transportation
Packet Page 97
- 2 -
3. The rose garden should be relocated to a location where it will get adequate exposure to the
sun so that the roses thrive; and the location should be in a place where it is a prominent feature
of the site (3.4.7)(F)(5).
4. The current conditions and location of the historic rose garden will be documented before
relocation (3.4.7)(F)(5).
In explaining her vote in opposition to the motion, Ms. Dunn noted that she supported the project; and that she
supported the conditions number 2, 3, and 4 (above), but felt that the design with the metal arch as proposed
in Alternate Version 1 already complies with the Code.
The Commission stated that it greatly appreciated the use of authentic Masonville stone on the project.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9
Packet Page 98
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Page 99
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Page 100
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Page 101
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Page 102
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Page 103
STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED
IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
14. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE
OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE
FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO
PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH
ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE
DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE
REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.
15. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY
THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO
ALLOW WAY_FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR
APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM
THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX_INCH
NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND
THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR
MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE.
Legal Description:
Site Plan Notes:
Land-Use Statistics:
Vicinity Map: NORTH
Owner's Certification of Approval:
THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _______ DAY OF
_______________________, 20________.
BY:
_____________________________________________________________
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO)
COUNTY OF _________)
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY _______________________
THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 20________.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ ___________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
(SEAL)
GROSS AREA COVERAGE
SQUARE FEET ACRES % OF
BUILDING FOOTPRINTS 5,078 0.116 52%
LANDSCAPE AREA 3,088 0.071 32%
PARKING AND DRIVES 1,075 0.025 11%
SIDEWALKS / PATHS 490 0.011 5%
TOTAL AREA: 9,731 0.223 100%
EXISTING ZONING: D- DOWNTOWN
GROSS LAND AREA: 9,731 S.F. .223 AC.
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: 1
NUMBER OF UNITS: 7
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 11
LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY
TOTAL STORIES: 3
GROSS DENSITY 31.4 D.U. / ACRE
HANDICAP PARKING STALL
PROPERTY LINE
Legend:
NOT TO SCALE
Site Plan
LOT 3, OLIVE STREET APARTMENTS
Planning Approval:
BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D.,
20_______.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
1
BICYCLE PARKING:
11 TOTAL BEDROOMS
REQUIRED:
1 SPACE PER BEDROOM 11 SPACES
60% ENCLOSED 7 SPACES
40% FIXED 4 SPACES
PROVIDED:
ENCLOSED 7 SPACES (LOCATED IN STAIR TOEWER)
FIXED RACKS 4 SPACES
TOTAL 11 SPACES
OFF-STREET PARKING
STANDARD REQUIREMENT
PER LUC SECTION 3.2.2(K)(1)(1):
7 TOTAL UNITS
4- 2 BR UNITS X 1.75 = 7 SPACES
3-1 BR UNITS X 1.5 = 5 SPACES
SPACES REQUIRED: 12 SPACES
PROJECT
LOCATION
BIKE RACKS
Of:
Sheet Number:
PROJECT TITLE
REVISIONS
ISSUE DATE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET INFORMATION
DATE
SEAL
March 14, 2018
DATE
PREPARED FOR
310 West Olive Street
Fort Collins CO 80521
Oasis on Olive
This Old Howes LLC
561 York Street
Denver CO 80209
OWNER:
Staff Comments 04/27/18
231 SOUTH HOWES STREET
WEST OLIVE STREET
NEW DRIVEWAY
EXISTING SIDEWALK
RAIN
GARDEN
310 WEST OLIVE STREET
COVERED
CONCRETE
PARKING
1
2
3
4
6
RESIDENTIAL UNIT #1
FENCED
YARD
EXISTING PATIO
PRIVATE DRIVE
316 WEST OLIVE STREET
324 CANYON AVENUE
EXISTING RAMP
8.5'
17.1'
NEW 4' SIDEWALK
PROPERTY
LINE
CANYON AVENUE
1
MAIL KIOSK
FENCE
5
6' SOLID PRIVACY FENCE
NEW 5' WROUGHT
IRON FENCE
TOD OVERLAY DISTRICT OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENT
PER LUC SECTION 3.2.2(K)(1)(1):
7 TOTAL UNITS
4- 2 BR UNITS X 1.0 = 4 SPACES
3-1 BR UNITS X .75 = 2 SPACES
SPACES REQUIRED: 6 SPACES
SPACES PROVIDED:
5 STANDARD SPACES
1 ADA SPACE
6 SPACES PROVIDED
16.9'
17.6'
46.6' 4.2'
87.3'
76.4'
72.7' 11.8'
33.5'
15.7'
30.5'
19.7'
7.2'
5.2'
5.5'
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Page 92
NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE
AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK
5' MIN.
GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP.
NOTE:
WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY
REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION.
THAN FINISH GRADE
TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER
DRIVE THREE (3) T-POSTS PER TREE
FOR TREES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT.
DRIVE TWO (2) T-POSTS FOR TREES
6' IN HEIGHT OR LESS. SPACE
ANCHORS EQUALLY AROUND TRUNK.
AVOID DAMAGE TO BRANCHES.
EXISTING SOIL
SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)
BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3
COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER
SETTLE
REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP
AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP
18" MIN.,
TYP.
SECTION
12" MIN.
ROOTBALL
THAN DIA. OF
24" GREATER
FINISH GRADE
PLAN
TREE TRUNK
T-POST
GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP.
WIRE, TYP.
NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE
AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK
TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO
BE 1" HIGHER THAN
FINISH GRADE
NOTE:
WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY
REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION.
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL
NOTE:
CEDAR MULCH TREE
RING SHALL BE 36" DIA.
2" MULCH
ROOTBALL
DEPTH
ROOTBALL
DEPTH
ROOTBALL
DEPTH
TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE
ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC
PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY
17.0'
2.0'
12.0'
2.0'
2"
2"
SANDSTONE CAP TO
MATCH EXISTING BRICK
WALLS NEARBY
SANDSTONE CAP TO
MATCH EXISTING BRICK
WALLS NEARBY
BRICK
BRICK
SIDE ELEVATION
STREET ELEVATION
POST SPACING
8' O.C.
4" MAXIMUM OPENING
VARIES WITH HEIGHT
STANDARD HEIGHT 5'
FOOTING DEPTH PER
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
4"
8"
13
4"
RAIL
POST SIZE VARIES
WITH HEIGHT,
SEE
MANUFACTURERS
POST-SIZING
CHART
1" SQUARE X
14GA PICKET
BRACKET
HARDWARE
COMPACTED
SUBGRADE
PER SOILS
REPORT
FINISH GRADE
FOOTING DEPTH
PER STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
2'-6" MIN.
1 X 6 WOOD TOP AND BOTTOM TRIM
TYP.
1 X 6 WOOD PICKETS W/1/8" GAP
BETWEEN BOARD, TYPICAL
7'-6" MAX.
6 X 6 WOOD POST, TYP.
4" DEPTH SAND
3"
4"
SECTION
2 X 6 WOOD TOP AND BOTTOM SUPPORT TYP. SCREWED
INTO WOOD POST, TYP.
1 X 6 WHITE WOOD PICKETS W/1/8" GAP
BETWEEN BOARD, TYPICAL
4 X 6 WOOD POST, TYP.
1 X 6 WOOD PICKETS
W/1/8" GAP BETWEEN
BOARD, TYPICAL
1 X 6 WOOD
TOP AND BOTTOM
TRIM TYP.
12" DIAMETER
CONCRETE
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
FINISH GRADE,
TYP.
SLOPE CONCRETE
AWAY FROM POST,
TYP.
EQUAL EQUAL
6 X 6 WOOD
POST, TYP.
2 X 6 WOOD
TOP AND
BOTTOM
SUPPORT TYP.
2" MAXIMUM BETWEEN FENCE
POST AND COLUMN, TYP.
OUTSIDE ELEVATION INSIDE ELEVATION
OUTSIDE
OF LOT LINE
INSIDE
OF LOT LINE
LOT LINE
Landscape Notes & Details
Of:
Sheet Number:
PROJECT TITLE
REVISIONS
ISSUE DATE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET INFORMATION
DATE
SEAL
March 14, 2018
DATE
PREPARED FOR
310 West Olive Street
Fort Collins CO 80521
Oasis on Olive
This Old Howes LLC
561 York Street
Denver CO 80209
OWNER:
Staff Comments 04/27/18
1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND
SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL
AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.
2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC
IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR
TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS
AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN
ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL.
3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON
AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING.
4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL
LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND
SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY
TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000)
SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED
TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132.
5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED
TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE
INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE
VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.
6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT,
LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING
ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE
STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.
7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.
8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES:
40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS
15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS
10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES
6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.
4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES
4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES
9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).
10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO
STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE
TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN.
11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE,
AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON
THIS PLAN.
12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT
AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT
WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES
AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.
14. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 18" X 4" ROLLTOPSTEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD OR APPROVED EQUAL.
A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN
ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK
AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE
PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION
(SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY.
General Landscape Notes
1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND
SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO
RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS
SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE.
3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL
WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE
DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.
4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO
ACCEPTANCE.
5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS
BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON
PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS.
Street Tree Notes
1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON
THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.
2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER
HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.
3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A
BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.
4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A
MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER
IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP
LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.
6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.
7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE
PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED.
8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM
THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW:
TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET)
0-2 1
3-4 2
5-9 5
10-14 10
15-19 12
OVER 19 15
9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO
ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA.
Tree Protection Notes
LS-2
2
METAL FENCE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
RAIN GARDEN DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
6' PRIVACY FENCE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 91
x Sedum 'Purple Employer'
STONECROP, PURPLE EMPEROR
x Sedum spurium, 'Dragon's Blood'
STONECROP DRAGON'S BLOOD
227 SOUTH HOWES
STREET
SCALE 1" = 10'-0"
0 10' 15' 20'
NORTH
Legal Description:
HANDICAP PARKING STALL
PROPERTY LINE
Site Legend:
Landscape Plan
LOT 3, OLIVE STREET APARTMENTS
LS-1
BIKE RACKS
Of:
Sheet Number:
PROJECT TITLE
REVISIONS
ISSUE DATE
SHEET TITLE
SHEET INFORMATION
DATE
SEAL
March 14, 2018
DATE
PREPARED FOR
310 West Olive Street
Fort Collins CO 80521
Oasis on Olive
This Old Howes LLC
561 York Street
Denver CO 80209
OWNER:
Staff Comments 04/27/18
231 SOUTH HOWES
STREET
WEST OLIVE STREET
NEW DRIVEWAY
EXISTING SIDEWALK
STAIR
TOWER
RAIN
GARDEN
OVERHEAD
GARAGE
DOOR
OVERHEAD
GARAGE
DOOR
ENTRANCE
ONLY
EXIT
ONLY
312 WEST OLIVE
STREET
OVERHEAD
GARAGE
DOOR
COVERED
CONCRETE
PARKING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESIDENTIAL
UNIT #1
FENCED
YARD
EXISTING PATIO
PRIVATE DRIVE
316 WEST OLIVE
STREET
324 CANYON AVENUE
FIXED BIKE
PARKING
4 SPACES
EXISTING RAMP
RAINGARDEN/PLANTER
6.7'
13.8'
NEW 4' SIDEWALK
6.6'
PROPERTY
LINE
CANYON AVENUE
2
Landscape Legend:
STONE PATH
TURF
PLANTINGS
FOUNDATION TURF
PLANTING STRIP
GRAVEL MULCH
TYPICAL
ROSE
GARDEN
GRAVEL MULCH
TYPICAL
FENCED
YARD
10.2'
8.6'
NEW 5' WROUGHT
IRON FENCE
4 POLY CARTS
6' DECORATIVE METAL
SCREEN FENCE TO MATCH
METAL PANELS ON BUILDING-
SEE ELEVATIONS
6.6'
NEW 6' CEDAR FENCE
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET LS-2
EXISTING
EXISTING PLANTINGS
NEW 5' WROUGHT
IRON FENCE
NEW 6' CEDAR FENCE
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET LS-2
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN TO
BE TREATED BY
CITY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
NOT BEING
TREATED BY
THE CITY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
NOT BEING
TREATED BY
THE CITY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
NOT BEING
TREATED BY
THE CITY
Plant List
GROUND COVER
TYPICAL
EXISTING METAL
FENCE WITH COLUMNS
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 90
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0
10'
10 5 10 20
SCALE: 1" =
NOTES:
1. BURIED UTILITIES AND OR PIPE LINES ARE SHOWN PER VISIBLE SURFACE
EVIDENCE AND AS-BUILT DRAWINGS OF THE CONSTRUCTED UTILITY LINES. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE DEPTH AND LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING
UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND CROSSINGS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. IF A
CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES AND/OR
DESIGN MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE
WITH THE ENGINEER TO MODIFY THE DESIGN. THE ENGINEER AND/OR THE
SURVEYOR OF RECORD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE LOCATION OF OR THE
FAILURE TO NOTE THE LOCATION OF NON-VISIBLE UTILITIES.
2. SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL TERMINATE UTILITY SERVICES 5-FEET FROM BUILDING
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE EXACT
LOCATIONS OF BUILDING UTILITIES WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
3. ALL STORM SEWER, POWER AND OTHER "DRY" UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, SHALL
CONFORM TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
CURRENT AT THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BY THE LOCAL ENGINEER.
4. ALL WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS CURRENT TO THE DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL WATER SERVICES SHALL BE TYPE K SOFT COPPER.
6. ALL SANITARY SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS CURRENT TO THE DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION.
7. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE SDR 35 PVC.
8. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE SDR 35 PVC WITH WATER TIGHT JOINTS AS
SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.
9. LENGTH OF PIPE IS MEASURED FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE TO CENTER OF
STRUCTURE AND INCLUDES THE FLARED END SECTION.
10. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR WALL LOCATION DETAILS OF GAS METERS,
ELECTRIC METERS, AND TELEPHONE TERMINALS.
11. LIMITS OF STREET CUT SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY CITY ENGINEER INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS.
12. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER (L&P) SHALL INSTALL PRIMARY LINE
FROM CONNECTION POINT TO ELECTRIC VAULT, SECONDARY LINES FROM
VAULT TO METER, AND BUILDING METER. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE
WITH FORT COLLINS METER GROUP FOR METER LOCATION. CONTACT CITY OF
FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER FOR THEIR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
13. DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION,
AS WELL AS EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND
GUTTERS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED,
DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE
REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPER’S EXPENSE, UNLESS
OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESE PLANS, PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF
COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
14. ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES ON-SITE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP,
AND ARE THEREFORE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PRIVATE OWNER.
15. BELOW GRADE UTILITY LOCATIONS WERE NOT PROVIDED. CONTRACTOR TO
CONFIRM ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS NOTIFY OWNER OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION
CENTER OF COLORADO
1-800-922-1987
or 8-1-1
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE
MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 89
for uses, modification to densities and development
standards, vesting of PUD Master Plans, and Engineering
variances.
5.1.2 – Definitions Adds definitions for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master
Plan.
Background
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
As proposed, the term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development and the
regulatory process that permits a developer to meet overall land use policies without being bound by all the
underlying use requirements within the Land Use Code and makes a provision for modifying design and
engineering standards. A PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD
Master Plan is approved. Potential benefits of the PUD overlay may include more efficient site design, preservation
of amenities such as open space, innovative community planning and site design solutions, higher level of design,
engineering and construction and other community goals, while protecting long-term property rights for larger
properties being constructed over multiple phases and long time periods.
PUD Zone District vs. Overlay Zone
When evaluating the potential zoning structure within the PUD ordinance, two options were considered: a PUD
overlay zone that supplements the existing underlying zoning and, alternatively, the adoption of a PUD zone
district that contains its own set of regulations and displaces the underlying zone. Given the pros and cons of each
approach, staff is proposing the former option. Under the proposed PUD overlay zone, the effect of such
Packet Page 5