Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/24/2012 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (STAFF: CUMBODATE: January 24, 2012 STAFF: Karen Cumbo Megan Bolin Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Planned Development Overlay District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a newly developed land use tool designed to enhance the Land Use Code process to encourage infill development and redevelopment. The PDOD provides applicants with some flexibility in land use and design while, at the same time, raises the bar in terms of incorporating community sustainability goals within the project. The PDOD is optional and applicants will continue to have the ability to use the standard Land Use Code (LUC) development process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the PDOD? 2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about implementing the PDOD? 3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the PDOD Ordinance on March 6? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Problem Statement The current requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC) do not address the particular challenges of infill development and/or redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from greenfield (previously undeveloped sites) to more infill development, unique and more frequent design challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility to achieve desirable, high-quality projects. Whereas the LUC was developed primarily for greenfield development applications, additional tools such as PDOD are being developed to help address the shift to infill redevelopment needs. Why do we need the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)? The PDOD originated with the intent of providing an alternative, flexible development review process for infill development and redevelopment. Infill and redevelopment projects can be more complex due to unique design challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and an established neighborhood context. While a prescriptive LUC works well for greenfield sites, often January 24, 2012 Page 2 times infill/redevelopment projects simply can not meet quantitative standards because of existing site conditions. Direction to develop a flexible land use tool came from several sources, including: • City Plan, Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment: “Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment.” (pg. 22) • Planning and Zoning Board, 2011 Work Program: “Throughout the year, starting with the Planning and Zoning Retreat in March, the Board has been discussing the need for an alternative—a flexible zoning tool. The need for this tool has arisen primarily in redevelopment areas but could have applications elsewhere. One reason for this need is the existing Land Use Code is weighted toward greenfield development. The Board believes a flexible zoning tool would be useful in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to develop in a high quality fashion while addressing the various issues and interests related to infill development that presents unique challenges.” • Transportation Master Plan, Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas: “Where the established street pattern and design may not conform to current street standards, allow for alternative contextual design.” (pg. 26) The existing development review process is not inherently flawed or in need of a major overhaul in order to accommodate infill/redevelopment; it simply is not currently designed to efficiently process complicated projects with multiple existing constraints. The City is experiencing more and more applicants that have found an undeveloped or underdeveloped parcel of land surrounded by other development. This is viewed as a positive trend since one of the major themes of City Plan is encouraging denser development in targeted infill areas, such as along the College Avenue spine. However, the existing Land Use Code is formulaic and prescriptive, and works well in some greenfield sites, but it does not take into consideration existing conditions or desired urban form. It is often difficult and at times next to impossible for infill development to meet all of the LUC standards, which means they have to apply for a modification, or multiple modifications, of those standards. As the City begins to process more and more of these types of projects, the number of modifications for each continues to rise. While this is not a negative consequence, it is not necessarily the most efficient process for more complicated infill projects. A better approach is to look at a site and its context holistically and design the project to address the major planning issues. Prescriptive standards work well for greenfield projects, but may not produce the highest-quality development on an infill/redevelopment site because of the existing context. Thus, the goal of the PDOD was not to invent something new; rather, staff worked within the existing development review framework and made improvements in order to remove LUC barriers for infill/redevelopment. This approach is not intended to replace the LUC; it is intended to provide a process to efficiently and effectively address the unique aspects of infill development. January 24, 2012 Page 3 What is the PDOD? The PDOD would be a new overlay zone district that enhances the LUC by providing an alternative to standard land development and permitting a creative, holistic approach that takes the context of surrounding development into consideration. The PDOD blends the planning concept of Planned Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning to produce the intended outcome of flexibility, while at the same time assuring high-quality development. The PDOD is optional for sites located within a defined boundary (see map, Attachment 2). This tool would be most effective in infill/redevelopment areas that are challenged by existing site constraints such as irregular lot shape or size, topography, and/or context. The boundary was drawn to include areas previously identified as targeted infill and redevelopment areas in City Plan, as well as the area defined as the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay because it too was intended as an encouragement for targeted infill/development along the spine of the city. An applicant within the boundary has the option to use the PDOD process and receive use, vesting, and design flexibility (explained further below), but would always have the option to use the existing process if the applicant chooses. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recognized the possibility of sites that fall outside of the PDOD boundary that could greatly benefit from some flexibility; therefore, an “opt-in” process was incorporated for sites outside the boundary, provided certain criteria are met. A site outside the boundary must abut developed land and have physical constraints and/or be a redevelopment project as defined in the Code. Determination of whether a site can “opt-in” is made by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director. How is the PDOD Different? There are several characteristics of the PDOD that set it apart from standard LUC development review, explained in detail below. Development Standards One difference is the design flexibility afforded to PDOD development. Currently, projects must comply with Article 4, Districts, which regulates permitted uses and Article 3, General Development Standards. Article 3 covers all of the basic elements of development and provides standards for considerations such as site planning and design, buildings, environment, natural areas, and transportation, among others. Within each of the Article 3 sections is a “General Standard”, typically followed by prescriptive standards that specify exactly how to meet the “General Standard”. The following is an example of a “General Standard” and prescriptive standard from Section 3.5.2 of the LUC, Residential Building Standards: • General Standard: Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high priority on buildings’ entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human scaled elements, architectural articulation and, in projects containing more than one building, design variation. January 24, 2012 Page 4 • Prescriptive Standard: A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be required for any single- family detached dwelling if the garage and/or driveway is served by access from the abutting street, unless such lot also adjoins an alley or is located at the corner of two public streets. Design flexibility is sometimes needed for infill/redevelopment due to pre-existing conditions. In some cases, it can be next to impossible to meet all of the prescriptive standards required to fit a new project into a well established area; and certainly more difficult than to “start fresh” on a greenfield site. In order to provide design flexibility, PDOD development would be required to comply with the “General Standard” of certain Sections of Article 3, and would be exempt from the subsequent prescriptive standards within those Sections. PDOD development would be exempt from Article 4 standards entirely. That said, it seems clear that certain sections of Article 3 should be followed in their entirety for varying reasons, and PDOD development would not be exempt from the standards for Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and applicable Supplementary Regulations. Engineering standards are not exempt because they regulate important health and safety issues, process-oriented elements like development agreements, maintenance and repair guarantees, and off-site public access improvements. Similarly, the section governing historic preservation is more process-oriented versus prescriptive for those structures eligible for landmark designation. Supplementary Regulations are specific process- and use-related standards that regulate items like signs, wireless telecommunication, and specialty uses such as dog day-care facilities, and should apply to PDOD projects. PDOD would incorporate the policies of City Plan into the unique and challenging aspects of infill development. In addition to meeting the “General Standards” in Article 3, PDOD projects must achieve at least 45 points in 4 categories on a performance matrix. The matrix was modeled after several examples of similar tools being used in other communities and sustainability-focused organizations. It is designed to provide a quantifiable aspect of PDOD projects to supplement the broad, qualitative “General Standards”. The matrix is located in the new Section 4.29 of the PDOD Land Use Code Ordinance. (Attachment 5) The matrix is a menu of site and building features/techniques that would encourage applicants to incorporate sustainability principles into their project. It is divided into seven categories that mirror the seven components of City Plan. The following describes the general concepts encouraged within each category: 1. Culture, Parks and Recreation: public art, historic preservation, recreation opportunities. 2. Economic Health: job creation, targeted redevelopment. 3. Environmental Health: energy efficiency, natural resource protection/conservation. 4. High Performing Community: civic engagement, participation in City programs. 5. Livability: mixed-use, building form/design. 6. Safety and Wellness: community gardens, floodplain and fire safety. 7. Transportation: connectivity, multi-modal options, parking. Each item within these categories is weighted depending on its value to the City in terms of achieving the policies of City Plan. Applicants can receive 1, 2 or 4 points for incorporating an item into their project. January 24, 2012 Page 5 At the end of each category is a blank item that is designed to reward applicant for innovation or outstanding performance. The applicant innovation component is intended to acknowledge that staff, at the time of PDOD adoption, could not possibly have included every potential design/process/technique that is of value to the community within the matrix. As such, the blank item was created to allow the applicant to be creative and incorporate something new/different than what is available to choose from within the matrix. Furthermore, points may be awarded for outstanding performance. This component is intended to provide extra points for an applicant that goes above and beyond within a particular category. For example, an applicant that provides 100% of the residential units to low income households could gain an extra 8 points for outstanding performance in terms of providing affordable housing. Developing the matrix was a very collaborative effort on the part of many City departments, local planning consultants, and other community groups. For this reason, staff is confident that the matrix items are attainable and provide encouragement to incorporate innovation into PDOD projects, ultimately resulting in high-quality projects. The point system was “case-tested” against seven recently-built and/or approved infill projects in order to calibrate the point system and ensure that the required 45 points results in a high-quality project. Summary comparison of development standards for PDOD versus the current process: Current Process PDOD • Article 4, Districts • Article 3, General Development Standards • Article 3: - “General Standards” - Entire Section for Engineering, Historic, and Supplementary Regulations • 45 points in 4 categories on performance matrix Land Use An additional distinction of the PDOD is that applicants would have flexibility in the land uses they include in their project. There are currently 25 distinct zone districts, each with a list of permitted uses. PDOD projects would be able to include any use that is allowed within the underlying zone district where it is located, but would also be able to include uses that are permitted in other zone districts throughout the city. This is not intended to allow for any use anywhere; uses not expressly permitted by the underlying zone district must meet additional criteria to be added by PDOD projects to ensure it is designed and/or mitigated appropriately. Summary comparison of land use allowances: Current Process PDOD • Permitted uses established for each zone district. • Permitted uses established by underlying zoning. • Uses permitted in other zone districts. January 24, 2012 Page 6 Vested Property Right A vested property right refers to the right to undertake and complete the development and use of the property under the terms and conditions of an approved final plan. The term of vesting is currently three years, meaning an applicant has three years from the time his/her final plan is approved to install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance with City codes. As an encouragement to use the PDOD and provide additional flexibility, the term of vested right for those projects would be extended to five years. Review Process A final variation that distinguishes the PDOD relates to the review process. The standard review process has three plan types: an overall development plan (ODP), project development plan (PDP), and final plan. The differences between these lies with the level of project detail. PDOD projects would have a similar, yet separate, process with different names for each of the plan types. The three PDOD plan types would be: general development plan (GDP), detailed development plan (DDP), and complete development plan. There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps include: 1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review. 2. Neighborhood Meeting. 3. Application Submittal. 4. Type 1 Review (decision-maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision-maker is the Planning and Zoning Board). From the perspective of the applicant/developer, PDOD projects would not have any additional review steps other than what is already required; however, PDOD applicants would have the option to participate in a pre-application informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board. The optional session with the Planning and Zoning Board would provide the applicant the opportunity to present basic concepts of the project and receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after the existing pre-application session that applicants can have with City Council for certain development applications. The intent is to provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about the project in hopes of identifying any major concerns that can be addressed in the formal submittal. Another distinction is that all PDOD projects will have a Development Review Outreach (DRO) meeting. The DRO is a meeting between staff and affected property owners without the applicant, where staff explains the review process and clarifies when and how neighbors will have the opportunity to provide input on a project. DRO meetings are relatively new and were implemented as a result of several development review process improvements made in 2011. A final difference is that all PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning that the Planning and Zoning Board would decide whether or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews are typically reserved for more complex development projects, and staff anticipates that infill development and redevelopment projects using PDOD would need this level of review. January 24, 2012 Page 7 Summary comparison of the development review process: Current Process PDOD Plan Types • Overall Development Plan • Project Development Plan • Final Plan Plan Types • General Development Plan • Detailed Development Plan • Complete Development Plan Review • Conceptual Review • Preliminary Design Review • Neighborhood Meeting • Application Submittal • Type 1 or Type 2 Review Review (differences in bold) • Development Review Outreach • Conceptual review • Preliminary Design Review • Neighborhood Meeting • Optional Planning and Zoning Board Pre-Application Meeting • Application Submittal • Type 2 Review (Planning and Zoning Board is decision maker) A compilation of PDOD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is attached for more information (Attachment 3). Outreach Listed below are completed and upcoming outreach meetings: 2011 • 3/11, 4/15, 5/15, 6/10, 8/12, 11/10, 11/17, 12/3 – Planning and Zoning Board • 4/14 – Urban Renewal Authority’s Developers/Brokers Luncheon • 4/27 – South Fort Collins Business Association • 6/14 – City Council Work Session • 7/27 – Landmark Preservation Commission • 9/19, 12/19 – Air Quality Advisory Board • 9/19 – Local Planning Consultants • 10/3 – Climate Wise Business Partners • 10/19 – Natural Resources Advisory Board • 10/21, 12/9 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee • 11/8 – Fort Collins Board of Realtors • 11/16, 12/13, 12/21 – Transportation Board 2012 • 1/13 – Planning and Zoning Board • 1/18 – Economic Advisory Commission January 24, 2012 Page 8 The following City Departments were consulted: • Advance Planning • Building • Current Planning • Development Lead Team • Economic Health • Engineering • Historic Preservation • Land Use Code Team • Natural Areas • Natural Resources • Office of Sustainability • Traffic • Transportation Planning • Urban Renewal Authority (Redevelopment) Team • Utilities ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary, June 24, 2011 2. Map of the PDOD Boundary 3. PDOD Frequently Asked Questions 4. Powerpoint presentation 5. Ordinance Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a new Planning Development Overlay Zone District (DRAFT) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 S SHIELDS ST E VINE DR INTERSTATE 25 S COLLEGE AVE S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE E PROSPECT RD E DRAKE RD E HORSETOOTH RD N SHIELDS ST N TAFT HILL RD W DRAKE RD LAPORTE AVE ZIEGLER RD E LINCOLN AVE E MULBERRY ST RIVERSIDE AVE W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD W HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD N COLLEGE AVE N LEMAY AVE E COUNTY ROAD 52 W HORSETOOTH RD W VINE DR COUNTRY CLUB RD N TIMBERLINE RD N US HIGHWAY 287 E WILLOX LN STRAUSS CABIN RD W WILLOX LN MOUNTAIN VISTA DR KECHTER RD S SUMMIT VIEW DR N COUNTY ROAD 11 9TH ST S COUNTY ROAD 9 S LEMAY AVE INTERSTATE 25 Planned Development Overlay District Boundary Legend Planned Development Overlay Major Streets O ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) Why do we need the PDOD? This tool is responding to a variety of issues development review staff, members of the public, and the development community have brought to our attention. They include: ‐ A growing trend toward more redeveloped and infill development projects throughout the City. These infill situations are very different than “greenfield” projects, often requiring more creativity and flexibility due to constrained sites and existing conditions. The current code is primarily intended for greenfield sites, but infill often can not meet the prescriptive standards of the current system without multiple modifications of standards. PDOD offers the opportunity to focus on site issues, context, and land use to incorporate creative solutions for these complex sites. ‐ With prescriptive standards, applicants find little incentive to go above code minimums. PDOD will encourage projects to incorporate sustainable building and site features that accomplish broader community goals and provide public benefits. ‐ The Land Use Code codified the “how‐to” in terms of meeting development objectives, and such a prescription never fits every circumstances. All sites are different and present different challenges and opportunities, especially when it comes to infill/redevelopment, necessitating flexibility to produce quality development. What is the intent/purpose of PDOD? The PDOD is optional for sites within the overlay and intended for constrained infill sites and redevelopment. Applicants with sites outside the overlay boundary may opt in and use the PDOD if the site abuts developed land and it is constrained or will be redeveloped. The PDOD is intended to allow stakeholders involved in the planning process, (applicants, staff and neighbors) to focus on the issues and discuss meaningful and creative ways to resolve those issues. The PDOD process will require applicants to think about broad community development objectives; objectives that good designers/site planners think about when incorporating a new project into a community. The PDOD does not specify how those objectives should be met, because there is acknowledgement that designers need freedom and flexibility to produce quality projects specific to the location. Are applicants required to use the PDOD? No, the PDOD is an optional overlay. Applicants can decide at any point in the development review process (prior to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board) to revert to the standard Land Use Code process without penalty. How does PDOD differ from the current development review process? There are currently three plan types: an overall development plan, project development plan, and final plan. The differences between these lies with the level of project detail. PDOD ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 2 projects would have a similar, yet separate process with different names for each of the plan types. The three PDOD plan types would be: general development plan, detailed development plan, and complete development plan. The table below shows how the nomenclature compares: PDOD All Other Districts General Development Plan Overall Development Plan Detailed Development Plan Project Development Plan Complete Development Plan Final Plan There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps include: 1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review 2. Neighborhood Meeting 3. Application Submittal 4. Type 1 Review (decision‐maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision‐maker is P&Z) PDOD projects would not be subject to any additional review steps other than what is already required; however, these projects would have the option to participate in a pre‐application informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z). The optional session with P&Z would provide the applicant the opportunity to present basic concepts of the project and receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after the existing pre‐application hearing that applicants can have with City Council for certain development applications. The intent is to provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about the project in hopes of identifying any major concerns that can be addressed in the formal submittal. Another difference is that all PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning that P&Z would decide whether or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews are typically reserved for more complex development projects, and staff anticipates that infill development and redevelopment projects using PDOD would need this level of review. What are the permitted uses? Any use permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted in the PDOD, and any use permitted in any other zone district will be permitted, provided that criteria are met, e.g. the use is designed compatibly, impacts will be mitigated, etc. What standards does a PDOD project need to comply with? Applicants will have to meet the “General Standard” of Article 3 Sections, releasing the need to meet the prescriptive requirements contained within each of those Sections. Certain Sections will have to be met in their entirety, including Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and applicable Supplemental Standards in Article 3. ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 3 In addition, PDOD projects will have to achieve at least 45 points in 4 categories as established on the PDOD performance matrix. Why do PDOD plan types have different names (GDP, DDP and CDP vs. ODP, PDP and FP) than current projects? The City wants to ensure that the process for PDOD development is called out separately in order to avoid confusion because, though they are similar, there are distinct differences in terms of how development standards are applied, vesting, and the optional Planning and Zoning Board pre‐application session. How does the underlying zoning play into PDOD? Any use permitted in the underlying zoning is permitted for PDOD projects and uses outside that zoning district may be considered, provided certain criteria are met. Any development standards contained within the underlying zoning district do not apply to PDOD projects; instead, PDOD projects must comply with all applicable “General Standards” from Article 3, and Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Supplementary Standards in their entirety. Will any use be considered? Uses not specified in the underlying zoning will be considered in the PDOD review process provided the following criteria are met: ‐ Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed permitted uses in the underlying zone district to which it is added; ‐ The negative impacts of such other use will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; and ‐ Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone district, or a use permitted in any other zone district of the City, complies with the PDOD standards. How do Article 3 standards apply for PDOD projects? PDOD projects must meet the applicable “General Standard” of Sections 3.2, and 3.4 through 3.6 but not the prescriptive standards located within each of those sections. Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources, and Division 3.3 and 3.7 though 3.11 must be met in their entirety where they apply. Do PDOD projects have flexibility with Stormwater standards? No more so than what is already allowed. Stormwater development standards are contained in the Municipal Code, not the Land Use Code, and are therefore not changed by adoption of the PDOD. Does this replace the Addition of Permitted Use? No, the Addition of a Permitted Use process is still available for non‐PDOD projects. Why would an applicant choose to do PDOD? ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 4 ‐ Use flexibility: other uses may be considered in addition to those uses permitted by the underlying zoning. ‐ Design flexibility: projects do not have to meet prescriptive standards and can be designed to accommodate the context of the site and neighborhood. ‐ Extended vested rights: applicants will have five years, as opposed to the current 3 years, to build the significant infrastructure for their project. ‐ Opportunity to be innovative: creative planning and design solutions are encouraged that might otherwise have been stifled by the prescriptive nature of the Article 3 and Article 4 Standards. Where can PDOD be used? A map exists which defines the boundaries; sites located within the overlay automatically have the option to use the PDOD. If a site is located outside of the overlay boundary, it may be allowed to use the PDOD if at least 50% of the site abuts developed land and at least one of the following is met: ‐ The site has special physical characteristics, including but not limited to irregular or odd‐ shaped lots/parcels, or lots/parcels with significant topographical barriers to standard development or construction practices; or ‐ The site has been previously developed. Why not have this available everywhere? PDOD is intended to be a tool to encourage infill and redevelopment; while more and more development is of this type, there is still vacant greenfield land where the LUC is a more appropriate tool. This is why the PDOD boundary is drawn to incorporate targeted infill and redevelopment areas. Only constrained sites that meet certain criteria will be given the option to use PDOD if they are outside the established boundary. What is wrong with our current development review process? Nothing is inherently wrong with the current process; however, the City will continue to see more infill/redevelopment as time goes on and the prescriptive nature of the Land Use Code routinely hinders creative planning solutions. Such projects require multiple modifications of standards which, again, are not inherently bad or wrong; but it is not necessarily the best approach or most efficient way to review these complex projects. What is the City getting in return for allowing the applicant flexibility in design and use? The goal is to encourage community goals and benefits in private development by requiring at least 45 points in 4 categories on the performance matrix. The City will get high‐performing, sustainable development projects. How will the public be involved in the review process? There are multiple ways: ‐ Development Review Outreach (DRO) meeting between staff and neighborhood. ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 5 ‐ A neighborhood meeting is required for PDOD projects that will encourage a charrette‐ style workshop with property owners to get them involved in the constraint/opportunity identification. ‐ Applicants can receive additional points on the matrix if they go above and beyond in terms of involving neighbors in the planning process, e.g. extra meetings, online project information/forum, etc. ‐ If the applicant chooses to participate in the optional pre‐application session with the Planning and Zoning Board, the public will be able to attend and comment on the project. ‐ Public hearing. How does the decision maker approve/deny a project? Projects will be evaluated in two ways: ‐ Applicants will have to meet the “General Standard” of Article 3 Sections, along with Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Supplemental Standards in Article 3 in their entirety. ‐ The development must obtain at least 45 points by choosing and committing to build/implement certain performance standards contained in the performance matrix. How does the Matrix work? The matrix is a menu of site and building features and techniques meant to encourage sustainability in the development project. There are seven categories which mirror the seven sections of City Plan: economic health; environmental health; community and neighborhood livability; transportation; culture, parks and recreation; safety and wellness; and, high performing community. Within each of those sections is a variety of elements encouraged in a project. Each item is weighted depending on the value to the community. Lower value items can receive either 1 or 2 points; higher value items can receive 2 or 4 points. Within each category is a blank item that is intended to encourage applicant innovation. The applicant can suggest something that is not already listed on the matrix and receive points if it provides value and meets the intent of whichever category it falls within. Additionally, applicants may receive extra points for “outstanding performance” if they go above and beyond in a particular category, e.g. providing 100% of the residential units to low‐income households and thus achieving an affordable housing priority. What type of sites would use this process? Infill sites with existing infrastructure or unique geographic issues that create unique design challenges. Redevelopment projects would also benefit from the PDOD. The LUC was intended to provide predictability for residents and developers in the sense that they knew what could happen where and what standards applied to all projects. This process brings back the uncertainty that we were trying to get away from with the LDGS. Why is this before the Board/Council? ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 6 The only uncertainty is that a use that was not previously permitted may be allowed. These cases will be analyzed very carefully and it is not a case where any use is permitted anywhere. Specific criteria must be met and the project must achieve points on the performance matrix, which means the project is going beyond what would normally be required through the standard LUC review process. Is it anticipated that this process will be used often? No, this process is not for every site and/or applicant. The process lends itself toward troublesome sites or applicants that wish to think outside the box. What were the concerns of developers and/or consultants? ‐ Too process heavy/time intensive. Staff has mitigated this concern by making the PDOD review as process‐neutral as possible by not requiring any additional review/meetings than would ordinarily be expected of development. It must be recognized, however, that infill development and redevelopment is inherently more complex and therefore will likely be more time intensive to develop regardless of whether it is going through the existing process or PDOD. ‐ Uncertainty of approval/risky. This is a concern because PDOD projects will be required to have a Type 2 review, which means that the Planning and Zoning Board is the decision‐maker. Some consultants have expressed that clients might rather have a Hearing Officer be the decision‐maker (Type 1 review) to eliminate the risk of having to receive a majority vote of approval. How do the TOD and PDOD work together? The PDOD boundary is very similar to the TOD Overlay boundary; both are tools to encourage higher density, urban infill development in targeted areas within the City. PDOD development will have to comply with TOD standards. TOD standards were designed to encourage the exact type of development that PDOD is also trying to encourage. TOD standards are also fairly broad; they mostly speak to having high quality buildings materials, encouraging pedestrian orientation, and set a minimum building height to achieve desired density. PDOD will provide development in the TOD with flexibility on prescriptive standards in the Land Use Code, and PDOD will also ensure that the development is meeting broader community sustainability goals. Why an Overlay? Several different options were considered including hybrid zoning, form based code, traditional planned unit development, and performance‐based zoning. Other communities generally restrict where they allow flexibility in their zoning and traditionally, it is for complex infill/redevelopment areas. In order to accomplish the fact that this is an option tool, presenting it as an overlay makes the most sense, because an applicant can choose whether to comply with standard zoning and development standards, or he/she can opt to use PDOD standards and process. An overlay allows for the existing zoning to coexist with the flexible zoning option. How will Engineering Standards be affected? ATTACHMENT 3 PDOD FAQ’s 7 The Land Use Code contains engineering standards in Article 3, Division 3.3, which govern plat standards, development improvements, water hazards, hazards, and engineering design standards. These types of standards are standard for all development and should not be flexed. Therefore, this Section of the LUC will apply to PDOD development in its entirety. How will Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) be affected? PDOD development will have to comply with LCUASS standards. The process to receive a variance from LCUASS standards is administrative as opposed to the Land Use Code modification of standard process which is taken to the ultimate decision maker for final decision. How will the City ensure Matrix items are implemented/monitored? PDOD applicants will be approved based on the score they receive on the matrix. Therefore, the project’s matrix commitments will get recorded on the site plan. This will ensure Matrix items are not forgotten. Building and zoning inspectors who review compliance with the site plan will assure items are implemented. Will PDOD projects have to comply with the Green Building Code amendments? Yes, the Green Building Code will apply to all PDOD projects. In essence, this code is the “base”, and PDOD projects will be encouraged to incorporate additional green building and site features into their projects using the performance matrix. Will there be additional fees to use the PDOD? No. The fee structure for general development plans, detailed development plans, and complete development plans will mirror those currently established for overall development plans, project development plans, and final plans, respectively. ATTACHMENT 4 1 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) City Council Work Session January 24, 2012 2 General Direction Sought 1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the PDOD? 2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about implementing the PDOD? 3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the PDOD Ordinance on March 6? ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 Background • Shifting development pattern from greenfield to more infill/redevelopment. • Existing Land Use Code (LUC) is prescriptive and can hinder infill/redevelopment. • Infill/redevelopment is more complex due to unique design challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and surrounding context. • Difficulty meeting LUC standards and requires modifications. 4 Background • Modifications do not mean the project is of lower quality; but are not the best method for complex infill/redevelopment. • Better to take site holistically and design to address major planning issues. • Flexibility is needed to allow for creative planning solutions that result in desirable, high-quality projects. ATTACHMENT 4 3 5 Policy Direction • City Plan, Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment • Transportation Master Plan, Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas • Planning and Zoning Board, 2011 Work Program • City Council Work Session, June 2011 6 Methodology • Identify infill/redevelopment barriers. • Research flexible zoning practices. • Develop PDOD Land Use Code framework. • Research performance-based sustainability tools. • Develop PDOD performance matrix. • Refine PDOD with focused outreach. ATTACHMENT 4 4 7 PDOD Basics • Land Use Code tool to assist infill/redevelopment. •Optional alternative to standard development processes. • Unique blend of planning methodologies to provide flexibility while assuring high-quality development. • Overlay zone district. 8 Boundary • Adapted from targeted infill and redevelopment areas and TOD Overlay. • “Opt-in” included for constrained sites outside of boundary provided the site: – Abuts land that is 50% developed and is: • Constrained; or • Previously developed. Harmony Rd Vine Dr Shields St Prospect Rd College Ave ATTACHMENT 4 5 9 Land Use Current Process • Permitted uses established by zoning. PDOD • Underlying zoning establishes land use. • Uses permitted in other zone districts allowed provided criteria are met: – Designed compatibly; – Impacts mitigated; and – Use complies with PDOD development standards. 10 Review Process Current Process • Conceptual Review • Preliminary Design Review • Neighborhood Meeting • Application Submittal • Type 1 or Type 2 Review PDOD • Development Review Outreach • Conceptual Review • Preliminary Design Review • Neighborhood Meeting • Optional P&Z Pre- Application Meeting • Application Submittal • Type 2 Review ATTACHMENT 4 6 11 Vested Right Current Process • 3 years to install and complete engineering improvements PDOD • 5 years to install and complete engineering improvements The right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under terms established by an approved Final Plan. 12 Development Standards Current Process • Article 4, District Standards • Article 3, General Development Standards PDOD • Article 3 Standards apply: – “General Standards” of certain Sections • Meet minimum points on the Performance Matrix ATTACHMENT 4 7 13 Development Standards (cont’’d)cont d) A. General Standard Example: All development shall be designed throughout to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations to the extent reasonably feasible. B. Prescriptive Standard Example: At least 65% of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single- and two- family residential developments must conform to the definition of a “solar oriented lot” in order to preserve the potential for solar energy use. Source: LUC 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading 14 Performance Matrix • Supplements the broad “General Standards” with quantifiable performance measures. • Encourages “above-code” project design through a menu of design and process techniques. • Derived from City Plan principles and policies. “General Standards” Performance Matrix Foundation ‐ existing Land Use Code Above‐code enhancements based on City policies ATTACHMENT 4 8 15 Performance Matrix (cont’’d)cont d) • 7 categories (derived from City Plan): • Weighted items: 1, 2 or 4 points. • Minimum 45 points in 4 categories. • Each category has a “blank” item for applicant innovation. • Applicant can receive up to 8 extra points for outstanding performance in a category.  Culture, Parks and Recreation  Economic Health  Environmental Health  High Performing Community  Livability  Safety and Wellness  Transportation 16 PDOD Benefits Applicant/Developer • Design flexibility. • Land use flexibility. • Extended vesting. • Another tool to facilitate infill/redevelopment. Community • Quality projects on otherwise constrained sites. • Above-code sustainable design. • Supports the creation of a dense urban environment. • Another tool to facilitate infill/redevelopment. ATTACHMENT 4 9 17 General Direction Sought 1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the PDOD? 2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about implementing the PDOD? 3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the PDOD Ordinance on March 6? 1 ORDINANCE NO. _____, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted City Plan Policy EH 4.2 which directs staff to develop new policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment with emphasis on a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to such development; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 Work Program identifies a need for a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a proposed flexible zoning tool in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 Work Program; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development Overlay District provides for flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability goals are met; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes regarding the Planned Development Overlay Zone District and have recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 1.4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (M) which reads in its entirety as follows: (M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References. In applying the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code, the term overall ATTACHMENT 5 2 development plan shall be deemed to mean a general development plan, 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 Land Use Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation. Section 2. That Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the character of the development, or with respect to applications filed under Division 2.15, the minor amendment continues to comply with the provisions of Section 4.29(D); or Section 3. That Section 2.2.10(A)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the character of the development, or with respect to applications filed under Division 2.15, the minor amendment continues to comply with the provisions of Section 4.29(D); or Section 4. That Section 2.2.11(D)(9) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans. . . . (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 granting of an exception to this requirement would not be detrimental to the public good and would: (a) substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-wide concern; or (b) result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. The provisions of this section shall not apply to applications filed under Division 2.15. 3 Section 5. That Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4, either for: (1) overall development plans and/or project development plans which are pending approval at the time that the request for proposed modification is filed; (2) overall development plans and/or project development plans which the applicant intends to file, provided that such plans are in fact filed with the Director as development applications within one (1) year following the determination of the decision maker on the request for the proposed modification; or (3) development plans approved under prior law and which are sought to be amended (either as a minor or major amendment) pursuant to Section 2.2.10. This modification of standards process shall not apply so as to allow any modification of the requirements contained in Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code. Section 6. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 2.15 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 2.15 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDOD) REVIEW PROCEDURES 2.15.1 General Development Plan (A) Purpose. The general development plan shall establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of a general development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. (B) Applicability. A general development plan shall be required for any property to be developed within the Planned Development Overlay District that is to be developed over time in two (2) or more separate detailed development plan submittals. (C) Process. A general 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, as follows: 4 (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 required for general 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. (4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All general development plans will be processed as Type 2 reviews. Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A general development plan shall show all proposed uses and all proposed phasing, to the extent that such uses and phasing can be reasonably known, and shall be consistent with Division 4.29, except that the general development plan is exempt from the minimum required points on the Planned Development Overlay Zone District performance matrix. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “general development plan” is referred to as “overall development plan”. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. (13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for approval of general development plans in the PDOD are 5 encouraged to participate in the following optional review procedure: This optional review is available to applicants that have completed their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. 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 deal with 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 pre-application 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. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested for any general development plan. 2.15.2 Detailed Development Plan (A) Purpose. The detailed development plan shall contain descriptions of the uses of the land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural elevations and buildings and shall include the plat (when such plat is required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this Code). Approval of a detailed development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. (B) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review and preliminary design review meetings and after the Director has made written comments, and after a neighborhood meeting has been held, an application for a PDOD detailed development plan review may be filed with the Director. If the project is to be developed over time in two (2) or more separate detailed development plan submittals, a general development plan shall be required subject to the requirements of Division 2.15.1. (C) Process. A detailed development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 6 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures, as follows: (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 required for detailed 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. (4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All detailed development plans will be processed as Type 2 reviews. Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A detailed development plan shall be consistent with Division 4.29; and, when a detailed development plan is within the boundaries of an approved general development plan, the detailed development plan shall be consistent with the general development plan. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “detailed development plan” is referred to as “project development plan”. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. 7 (13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for approval of detailed development plans in the PDOD are encouraged to participate in the following optional review procedure: This optional review is available to applicants that have completed their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. 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 deal withsite 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 inend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and the affected property owners. All pre-application 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. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested for any detailed development plan. 2.15.3 Complete Development Plan (A) Purpose. The purpose and applicability of a complete development plan is contained in Section 2.1.3(D). (B) Process. A complete development plan may only be submitted after approval of a detailed development plan for the subject property or concurrently with a detailed development plan for the subject property. For consolidated applications for a detailed development plan and a complete development plan, the applicant shall follow both the detailed development plan and complete development plan review procedures. A complete 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: (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Not applicable. 8 (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for complete 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. (4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Not applicable. (7) Step 7(A)-(C) (Decision Maker, Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceeding at Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in substitution therefore, the Director is hereby authorized to, and shall, review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application for a complete development plan based on its consistency with a valid detailed development plan for the subject property and its compliance with all of the standards established in Step 8 of this Section. The Director may, but is not obligated to, confer with the applicant or other city staff to obtain clarification or explanation, gain understanding, suggest revisions, or otherwise discuss or learn about the development proposal and a complete development plan, all for the purpose of ensuring a fully consistent and compliant complete development plan. Step 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Not applicable, except that Step 7(D)(3) shall apply. Step 7(E) (Notification to Applicant): Applicable. Step 7(F) (Record of Proceedings): Not applicable, except that Step 7(F)(2) shall apply. Step 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A complete development plan shall comply with Division 4.29 and be consistent with the detailed development plan. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. 9 (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term of vested rights contained in Section 2.2.11(D)(3) shall be five (5) years. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Not applicable. The Director’s decision shall be final and no appeal of the Director's decision will be allowed; however, the Director may refer the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board when the Director is in doubt as to the compliance and consistency of the complete development plan with the approved detailed development plan. If the Director refers the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board shall be final and shall not be appealable to the City Council, notwithstanding any provision of the City Code to the contrary. Section 7. That Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (C) which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading . . . (C) General Standard. All development shall be designed throughout to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations to the extent reasonably feasible. Section 8. That Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures (A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of trash and recyclable materialsby requiring that adequate, convenient space is functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land use sites. . . . (C) General Standard. All development, to the extent reasonably feasible, shall provide adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible trash and recycling enclosures to accommodate the specific needs of the proposed use. Section 9. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 3.4.3 Water Quality The development shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and sedimentation, storm drainage and runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous substances. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Treatment measures may include, but shall not be limited to:  minimization of impervious surfaces  runoff spreaders  infiltration devices  extended detention  constructed wetlands  sand filters  water quality inlets General Standard. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Section 10. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.4 Noise and Vibration The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the city’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any vibration created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line. Noise generated by emergency vehicles and airplanes shall be exempted from the requirements of this provision. General Standard. Proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any vibration caused by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line. Section 11. That Section 3.4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.8 Parks and Trails (A) Establishment of Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan. In order to accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code, the location, size 11 and characteristics of parks and trails have been established on a plan entitled "City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan" dated December 1996, as amended, which plan is hereby made a part of this Land Use Code by reference. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan is on file with the City Clerk. (B) Purpose. The compliance of development plans with the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan ensures that the community will have a fair and equitable parks, trail and recreation system as the community grows. Establishment of the facilities in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan generally provides the same level of service to new portions of the community as the existing community enjoys. (BC) Compliance with Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan General Standard. All development plans shall provide for or accommodate the parks and trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan that are associated with the development plan. Section 12. That Section 3.5.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility . . . (B) Architectural Character General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. . . . Section 13. That Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 12 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards in this Section are intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian-oriented streets in residential development. (B) General Standard. Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human-scaled elements, architectural articulation, and in projects containing more than one (1) building, design variation. . . . Section 14. That Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (A) Purpose. These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale. to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement. (B) General Standard. Mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall be designed with a variety of scales, creating a mass and composition of detail at the street level that is appropriate to the pedestrian, in order to encourage attractive street fronts. Street fronts and walkways shall accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement. Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. . . . Section 15. That Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (B) which reads in its entirety as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 3.5.4 Large Retail Establishments . . . (B) General Standard. Large retail buildings shall provide a high level of architectural interest by utilizing high quality materials and design and shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Large retail 13 buildings shall have pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity, and shall mitigate any negative impacts. Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. . . . Section 16. That Section 3.5.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (B) which reads in its entirety as follows and all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 3.5.5 Convenience Shopping Center . . . (B) General Standard. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood utilizing high quality materials and finishes, and shall be internally compatible and harmonious with respect to quality design, aesthetics and materials, tailored specifically to the site and its context. . . . Section 17. That Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which read in their entirety as follows with the current subsections (A) through (C) relettered accordingly: 3.6.1 Master Street Plan (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation network of streets, alleys, roadways and trails is in conformance with adopted transportation plans and policies established by the City. (B) General Standard. The transportation network of any proposed development shall be in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, as well as City adopted access control plans and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. . . . Section 18. That Section 3.6.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which read in their entirety as follows with the current subsections (A) through (M) relettered accordingly: 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements 14 (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the various components of the transportation network are designed and implemented in a manner that promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the City. (B) General Standard. Public streets, public alleys, private streets, street-like private drives, and private drives shall be designed and implemented in a manner that establishes a transportation network that protects the public health, safety and welfare. Rights-of-way and/or easements for the transportation system shall be sufficient to support the infrastructure being proposed. The transportation network shall clearly identify construction and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed infrastructure. All responsibilities and costs for the operation, maintenance and reconstruction of private streets, street-like private drives, and private drives shall be borne by the property owners. The City shall have no obligation tooperate , maintain or reconstruct such private streets, street- like private drives, and private drives nor shall the City have any obligation to accept such private streets, street-like private drives, and private drives. . . . Section 19. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 4.29 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVSIION 4.29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (P-D-O-D) (A) Purpose and Applicability. (1) Purpose. The Planned Development Overlay District (“PDOD”) is a district within certain areas of the City designed to provide an optional process for reviewing an applicant’s compliance with the applicable land use, design and development standards established by underlying zone districts and Article 3 of this Land Use Code. The district is intended to further the City’s sustainability goals as set forth in City Plan, and to provide flexibility in the design of development to best utilize the potential of sites that are characterized by exceptional geographic features, topography, size, shape and/or the constraints of existing development. The district is intended to provide a development review process that encourages heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City staff. (2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22) shall be eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in 15 Section D instead of the development standards in Article 3 and the underlying zone district, at the option of the developer. (a) In order to utilize the PDOD zone district regulations, the proposed development must be under single ownership or control to ensure that there is a single entity responsible for completing the project. The applicant shall provide sufficient documentation of ownership or control to indicate the development will be completed in its entirety by a signal entity as proposed. (b) If a property is not located within the PDOD, it may be deemed eligible by the Director to be placed in the district, provided that at least fifty (50) percent of the site abuts developed land and that the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the following criteria have been met: 1. The site has exceptional physical conditions, including but not limited to irregular or odd-shaped lots, or lots with significant topographical barriers; or 2. The site has been previously developed. Figure 22 16 (B) Permitted Uses. (1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in the PDOD. 17 (2) Any use permitted in any other zone district of the City will be permitted, only if such use conforms to all of the following conditions: (a) Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed permitted uses in the underlying zone district to which it is added; (b) The impacts of such use will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; (c) Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone district or a use permitted in any other zone district of the City, complies with the land use standards contained in paragraph (D) of this Section. (C) Prohibited Uses. There are no expressly prohibited uses in the PDOD zone district except those uses listed in Section 4.28(C)(1 through 9) of this Land Use Code, and uses that are not listed as permitted uses in any zone district of the City. (D) Land Use Standards. Development in the PDOD shall comply with the following: (1) Divisions 3.3 and 3.7 through 3.11 of Article 3 of this Land Use Code in their entirety; (2) The “General Standards” of all Sections in Divisions 3.2, and 3.4 through 3.6; (3) Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources in its entirety; and (4) Any development in the PDOD must also score at least forty-five (45) points from at least four (4) categories as established on the PDOD performance matrix (Figure 23). Figure 23 Application of the Planned Development Overlay Disrict (PDOD) Performance Matrix 18 The following provides clarification on how projects will be evaluated under the Planned Development Overlay District Performance Matrix and provides more detailed definitions for the performance criteria contained in the matrix. The performance criteria established in this performance matrix are not intended to supersede any requirements established in other documents governing public rights-of- way such as the Municipal Code, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, and the City’s Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Any proposal to implement performance criteria within public rights-of-way is subject to additional review under the criteria previously established within the appropriate other documents. Performance Matrix Evaluation An applicant may choose which of the performance criteria to incorporate within the development project and will be assigned a score. A minimum of forty-five (45) points must be obtained from at least four (4) of the seven (7) performance categories in order for the development project to be approved. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 2, or 4 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of significant value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of lesser value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 1 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 2 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Some of the criteria are worded such that they will either be implemented or not,. Therefore, there are no degrees of implementation for these criteria. Depending upon the value of the criterion to the City, the numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 1/2/4 Implementation of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 19 Applicant Innovation or Outstanding Performance Within each performance category is a criterion that is intentionally left blank and can be completed by the applicant. The purpose of this criterion is to encourage innovative techniques not otherwise identified within the performance matrix. An applicant must clearly describe the proposed technique and how it will promote established City policies relevant to the particular category. Furthermore, an applicant may receive points for performing exceedingly well in a particular category. There is no limit to the number of “applicant innovations” within each category. The numerical score for an innovation or outstanding performance is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 8 Maximum implementation and/or outstanding performance in the category given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Definitions: Environmental Health 1.5 See Section 3.2(E)(3) of the Land Use Code that details the considerations associated with waterwise, or xeriscape, landscaping. 1.15 See the Land Use Code definitions in article V: Tree, significant shall mean any tree with a DBH of six (6) inches or more. Section 3.2.1(F) describes in detail what a significant tree is within the City of Fort Collins. Economic Health 4.2 & 4.3 Primary job shall mean a job that derives fifty (50) percent or more of its income and purchases outside of the City and sells fifty (50) percent or more of its products or services outside of the City. 4.8 Underdeveloped or underutilized – shall mean a parcel/lot with less than twenty- five (25) percent of its total land area developed or utilized. Culture, Parks, and Recreation 5.5 Natural play area shall mean a natural playground, natural playscape, green playground or natural play environment is an area where children can play with natural elements such as sand, water, wood and living. Natural play areas must be designed for active play and preferably by a landscape architect. Safety and Wellness 6.7 Floatable materials shall mean any material that is not secured in place or completely enclosed in a structure, so that it could float off site during the occurrence of a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners, 20 or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge or other drainage facility. This includes, without limitation, lumber, vehicles, boats, equipment, trash dumpsters, tires, drums or other containers, pieces of metal, plastic or any other item or material likely to float. Floatable materials shall not include motor vehicles parked temporarily on property for the purpose of customer or employee parking, or a business's temporary outdoor display of inventory during its usual hours of operation. 6.8 Fill shall mean a deposit of materials of any kind placed by artificial means. 6.9 Dryland Access shall mean a gravel, paved or concrete access route that connects a structure to a Dry Public Street, that is constructed above the base flood elevation, and that is of sufficient width to accommodate both emergency vehicles and other emergency access during evacuation of the site, considering the estimated number of people using the site and the expected mode (car, walking) of evacuation. Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Performance Matrix Applicant must score 45 points at minimum from at least 4 categories. * Definitions are available in the Appendix. Points Culture, Parks, Recreation 1.1 Incorporates art, sculpture or fountains viewable to the public. 0 1 2 1.2 Designates the site, structure(s) or object(s) determined to be individually eligible as a local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Register of Historic Places. 0 2 4 1.3 Provides a plaza, pedestrian mall, public square, park or other similar public open space within the project. 0 2 4 1.4 Rather than creating play spaces dominated by turf/sod grasses, incorporates natural play opportunities into the site.* 0 2 4 1.5 Site is located within ¼ mile of an existing (4 points) or planned (2 points) bike or other recreational trail and provides a pedestrian/bike connection to the trail. 0 2 4 1.6 If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation, participate in a complementary design review with the Landmark Preservation Commission, and incorporate feedback into the final design. 0 2 1.7 If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation, participate in the Design Assistance Program administered through the Historic Preservation Department, and incorporate feedback into the final design. 0 4 1.8 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote the City’s culture, parks, and recreation policies: 0 2 4 8 21 Economic Health 2.1 Creates or retains at least one locally-owned business, meaning a business enterprise (sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or other similar business entity) with headquarters located within a 40 mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary. 0 1 2 2.2 Retains existing primary jobs.* 0 2 2.3 Creates at least 5 new primary jobs.* 0 2 4 2.4 At least one (1) business created or retained by the project is associated with one of the City’s established Targeted Industry Clusters (Bioscience, Water, Clean Energy, Software/Hardware, Uniquely Fort Collins). 0 1 2 2.5 At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to households earning between sixty (60) -eight (80) percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 0 1 2 2.6 At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to households earning less than sixty (60) percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 0 2 4 2.7 Employes at least one (1) local contractor for design/construction/deconstruction work, meaning a City- licensed contractor with headquarters located within a forty (40) mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary. 0 1 2 2.8 Site is undeveloped, underdeveloped, and/or underutilized.* 0 2 2.9 Site is located within the boundary of an Urban Renewal Plan Area or the Downtown Development Authority. 0 2 2.10 Locates site within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing (4 points) or funded (2 points) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop along the Mason Corridor. 0 2 4 2.11 Assembles two (2) or more lots/parcels. 0 2 4 2.12 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s economic health policies: 0 2 4 8 Environmental Health 3.1 Designs and builds at least one (1) principal building to be eligible for LEED certification. 0 2 4 3.2 Designs and builds all buildings to exceed the City’s Building Energy Code by at least ten (10) percent. 0 2 4 3.3 Uses runoff from small rainfall events (total rainfall of .5 inches or less) for landscape irrigation and/or onsite infiltration. Choose from all techniques listed in 1.3a-j below which are described in detail in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual: 3.3a Contains grass buffer. 0 1 2 3.3b Contains srass swale. 0 1 2 22 3.3c Contains bioretention (rain garden or porous landscape detention). 0 2 4 3.3d Contains green roof. 0 2 4 3.3e Contains extended detention basin (EDB). 0 2 4 3.3f Contains sand filter. 0 1 2 3.3g Contains wet pond with water quality capture volume (WQCV). 0 2 4 3.3h Contains constructed wetland pond. 0 2 4 3.3i Contains constructed wetland channel. 0 2 4 3.3j Contains permeable pavement. 0 2 4 3.4 Uses paving materials with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least twenty-nine (29). 0 1 2 3.5 Uses at least fifty (50) percent waterwise landscaping materials.* 0 1 2 3.6 Uses native plants for landscaping as defined in the Fort Collins Native Plants guide. 0 1 2 3.7 In mixed-use and non-residential developments, includes recycle containers adjacent to other waste collection receptacles in areas accessible to the public. 0 1 2 3.8 Implements a three (3)-bin waste system by providing space for trash, recycling, and composting accessible to residents and/or tenants. 0 2 3.9 Restores preexisting degraded natural resources area on or adjacent to the site, e.g. wetlands, native grasslands, riparian forests, streams. 0 2 4 3.10 If the site is contiguous with a natural area or natural habitat or feature, creates internally contiguous habitat opportunities on a minimum of ten (10) percent of the overall land area of the site. 0 1 2 3.11 Designs and incorporates on-site renewable energy for at least five (5) percent of total energy generation using technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, or biomass. 0 2 4 3.12 Designs and builds at least one (1) building so that it will readily accommodate the installation of solar photovoltaic panels or solar thermal hot water heating devices, including all necessary conduit, chases, roof penetrations, roof pitch, and orientation. For projects with multiple buildings, designs and builds at least twenty (20) percent to be solar ready as described. 0 1 2 3.13 Uses any combination of solar reflective index (SRI) compliant and vegetated roofing materials, provided they collectively cover at least seventy-five (75) percent of the total project roof area. 0 2 4 3.14 Specifies and installs high efficiency equipment such as water heaters, appliances, furnaces or air conditioning units in any newly constructed or renovated buildings. 0 2 23 3.15 Protects valuable features including creeks, significant trees and wetlands and, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate such features into the overall design of the site as shared amenities.* 0 1 2 3.16 Provides space and equipment for shared trash/recycling/composting activities and coordinates with adjacent property owners to establish service sharing for waste removal. 0 2 4 3.17 Re-uses deconstructed materials in the construction of new buildings and/or other site features. 0 2 4 3.18 Provides and retrofits water quality treatment beyond minimum requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual, including treatment for the original developed site, the redeveloped portion, and any newly developed area. 0 1 2 3.19 Detains off-site runoff (identify source and provide adequate volume of storage) beyond minimum requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual. 0 1 2 3.20 Coordinates with adjacent property owners to share water quality and detention systems and/or facilities. 0 2 4 3.21 Provides on-site composting system(s) to process the site’s organic waste. 0 1 2 3.22 Develops and implements a long-term vegetation management plan that ensures proper training for staff, addresses weed management and native plant establishment, and provides a funding mechanism to address problems when they occur. 0 4 3.23 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s environmental health policies: 0 2 4 8 High Performing Community 4.1 Implements citizen engagement best practices throughout their development review process such as an extra neighborhood meeting, design-charrette with neighbors, or interactive project blog. Provides the City with a written assessment of surrounding neighborhood needs and concerns, and indicates how those needs and concerns are being addressed by the project design. 0 4 4.2 The business(es) occupying the development is (1 point) or will become (2 points) a City of Fort Collins Climate Wise partner. 0 1 2 4.3 Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the Prescriptive Approach. 0 2 4.4 Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the 24 and provide the City with a written assessment of the identified concerns, and address how those are being addressed by the project. 4.6 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote the City’s high performing community policies: 0 2 4 8 Livability 5.1 Includes two (2) or more use types. No one use shall amount to less than ten (10) percent or more than eighty (80) percent of the total development gross floor area. Individual phases of projects may have a lesser mix if the applicant provides assurances acceptable to the City that later phases will produce the required overall mix. 0 2 4 5.2 Locates any residential component of the project within one-half (½) mile of at least four of the following community facilities: school, library, childcare or daycare, health care facilities, community centers, family and human services, community assembly use, park, recreation facility, public safety, public buildings. 0 2 5.3 Adapts or re-uses at least one (1) existing non-accessory building on the site. 0 2 4 5.4 Incorporates a mix of two (2) or more uses vertically. 0 4 5.5 Uses natural stone, synthetic stone, brick and/or concrete masonry units (solely or in combination) to cover the first floor elevation on exterior buildings that are visible to the public. 0 1 2 5.6 Adapts and incorporates prominent or distinctive design elements from neighboring structures, e.g. rooflines, recesses, projections. 0 1 2 5.7 Designs the first floor of mixed-use building(s) so it can accommodate commercial/retail and residential uses. 0 2 5.8 Includes neighborhood-serving retail in the project, e.g. grocery store, dry cleaner. 0 1 2 5.9 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s community and neighborhood livability policies: 0 2 4 8 Transportation 6.1 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of existing (4 points) or planned (2 points) transit stop. 0 2 4 6.2 Provides or enhances an existing pedestrian connection from the site to an existing or funded transit stop. 0 2 4 6.3 Provides at least one (1) preferred parking space for carpool, shared-use, and/or other alternatively-fueled vehicles along street-like private drives and/or parking lots for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces. 0 1 2 25 6.4 Uses street-like private drives for internal roadway connections where connections are not necessary to be public streets. 0 1 2 6.5 Establishs pedestrian and bicycle Level Of Service (LOS) A as defined in the Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual. 0 1 2 6.6 Provides at least one (1) charging station (“plug-in”) along street- like private drives and/or parking lots for electric/hybrid vehicles. 0 2 4 6.7 Provides secured and covered bicycle storage spaces for residents or employees. 0 2 4 6.8 Provides or enhances an existing public area and/or facility on site for awaiting transit passengers. 0 1 2 6.9 Provides bicycle parking spaces greater than ten (10) percent of the total number of automobile spaces. 0 2 4 6.10 Provides structured or below-ground parking (reduced parking footprint). 0 2 4 6.11 Provides employees with at least one (1) shower per gender on- site for every thirty (30) bicycle parking spaces. 0 2 4 6.12 Devotes less than twenty-five (25) percent of site to surface parking. 0 1 2 6.13 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of a vehicle share station (auto and/or bike share). 0 2 4 6.14 Coordinates with adjacent property owners to provide shared auto parking facilities for the development. 0 2 4 6.15 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s transportation policies: 0 2 4 8 Safety and Wellness 7.1 Provides at least twenty (20) percent of the total landscaping with plants that are edible or produce edible material, e.g. fruit or nut- bearing trees. 0 1 2 7.2 Provides managed open space for a community garden or composting activity with fencing and/or irrigation as needed. 0 2 4 7.3 Installs fire sprinkler systems in all single-family residential units. 0 4 7.4 Provides an emergency evacuation plan which identifies important safety features of all buildings, such as exit routes and internal shelter locations (in case of tornados), safety equipment such as fire escape ladders or extinguishers, and locations of shutoffs for gas, water, and electricity. 0 2 7.5 Locates development outside of the flood fringe. 0 4 7.6 If the site is adjacent to a culvert or bridge, relocates buildings and/or raises the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement and crawlspace) to minimize flood damage should the 0 2 4 26 culvert or bridge become blocked by debris during a 100-year flood. 7.7 Refrains from putting floatable materials on a site in the floodplain fringe of any FEMA or City floodplain.* 0 2 4 7.8 Does not put fill in the 100-year flood fringe.* 0 4 7.9 Provides dryland access for 100-year flood.* 0 2 4 7.10 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s safety and wellness policies: 0 2 4 8 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Whole Building Approach. 0 4 4.5 Utilizes alternative dispute resolution processes, e.g. mediation, to engage surrounding neighbors in the project design process 0 4