HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/02/2014 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2014 EXTENDINGAgenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 2, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2014, Extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Which Amended the Land
Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District for One Additional
Year.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request a twelve-month extension of the Planned Development Overlay District
pilot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
At the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) work session on August 8, 2014, staff recommended that the Planned
Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot expire, which would have required no additional action on the part
of P&Z or City Council. P&Z discussed the PDOD pilot at their regular meeting on August 14. During citizen
participation, three individuals spoke on behalf of the same potential project and requested that the pilot be
extended. After discussion, the Board made a formal recommendation that Council extend the pilot.
While staff remains unconvinced that the PDOD provides value to infill and redevelopment projects, there are
no significant concerns with extending the pilot for an additional year. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of
this Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
To address the challenges of infill and redevelopment, staff worked collaboratively in 2011-2012 with the
Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to develop the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a unique
zoning mechanism that blends the concepts of Planned Unit Developments and performance-based zoning.
The PDOD provides flexibility on certain development regulations in the Land Use Code without having to use
the existing Addition of a Permitted Use or Modification processes. In return for this flexibility, projects must
achieve at least 60 points on a supplemental performance matrix that is designed to reward projects for going
beyond minimum standards. The PDOD has a defined boundary, which was drawn to be consistent with the
City’s targeted infill and redevelopment areas and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District
(PDOD boundary map attached). One final characteristic to note is that all PDOD projects are processed as
Type 2, meaning P&Z is the decision-maker in terms of whether or not the project gets approved.
Being an untested concept for the City, the PDOD was proposed first as a pilot to allow for real-world test
cases. The pilot was unanimously recommended by P&Z and ultimately adopted by City Council on February
26, 2013; it provided a six-month window where PDOD submittals would be accepted, but the number of
applications accepted was capped at five. The pilot began immediately after adoption and was set to expire on
September 9, 2013. According to the PDOD Ordinance, City Council has the option to extend the pilot “in the
event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been insufficient development proposals
presented to the City within the boundaries of the PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the
viability of the District” (Ordinance No. 24 attached).
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
Despite efforts to market the PDOD to potential applicants, there were no submittals during the first six months
of the pilot. At a work session on August 2, 2013, P&Z discussed whether or not to recommend extending the
pilot. Staff presented feedback gathered from the local development community and citizen taskforce that was
formed to help staff evaluate the PDOD (feedback summary attached). Ultimately, the Board agreed the best
course of action was to extend the pilot for an additional year. City Council agreed and passed Ordinance No.
115, 2013 (attached), extending the PDOD pilot until September 9, 2014.
Despite the high level of development activity since adoption of the pilot, zero projects have chosen to try the
PDOD. Anecdotally, applicants are choosing the more predictable Land Use Code process which provides the
opportunity to request modifications should their project require flexibility. The PDOD, on the other hand, was
designed for complex projects, requires a greater level of review, is more subjective, and sets higher standards
through the performance matrix.
Staff was prepared to let the PDOD pilot expire on September 9 primarily because of the lack of interest in the
last 18-months. Considering the projects that have been through development review in the same timeframe, it
is difficult to make the case that the City’s Land Use Code is ineffective for infill and redevelopment. At the
same time, the PDOD may still prove useful for a larger, complex project, and it requires minimal staff
resources to continue the pilot. At their regular meeting on August 14, 2014, P&Z voted unanimously to
recommend that City Council extend the PDOD pilot for an additional twelve-month period, making the new
expiration date September 2015. The same conditions of the original pilot as established by Ordinance No. 24,
2013 would apply:
Only projects within the defined boundary area are eligible to use the PDOD.
Up to five PDOD submittals will be accepted within the twelve-month pilot extension.
City staff will collect data on any PDOD projects that submit, and with help from the citizen taskforce,
evaluate how well the PDOD is working and report back to City Council.
Council will continue to have the option to extend the pilot should insufficient projects submit during the
twelve-month timeframe.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The purpose of the PDOD is to reduce barriers for infill and redevelopment projects, which directly implements
Economic Health Policy 4.2 from City Plan. Additionally, the performance matrix provides the opportunity for
the economic benefits of a project to be considered; this is unique and not something that existing
development review can take into consideration.
Concern has been raised that complying with the PDOD (specifically, the performance matrix) may add cost to
a development project. While it is true that the performance matrix rewards projects for going beyond
minimum Land Use Code standards, it is very difficult to provide an accurate analysis of costs for a PDOD
project because of the trade-offs and variety of options an applicant has to comply with the performance
matrix. Financial impact is something the pilot will evaluate to determine whether the concerns raised are
justified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementing the PDOD pilot would facilitate infill development and redevelopment projects throughout the
boundary area, which may or may not have environmental issues to address. Article 3.4.1 of the Land Use
Code, Natural Habitats and Features, must be complied with in its entirety, which maintains existing
environmental protections from development activity. Additionally, the performance matrix provides the
opportunity to reward projects that go beyond code minimums in terms of environmental protections and
green/sustainable building/site design; this is a unique feature of PDOD that the existing development review
process does not consider.
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 3
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board made a unanimous recommendation that City Council adopt the Ordinance.
Minutes from the August 14, 2014, P&Z meeting are provided.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Prior to the first extension of the PDOD pilot, the following outreach occurred:
Staff met with eight representatives from local planning/development firms prior to adoptions of the first
pilot extension to understand what, if anything, they were hearing from their clients regarding the
PDOD, and any general observations they had on why no PDOD pilot projects had been submitted. A
similar conversation was had with City Planning staff based on input heard from recent applicants.
A citizen taskforce comprised of eight individuals was formed at the onset of the pilot, whose role was
to assist staff with the evaluation of the PDOD. The taskforce met on three different occasions, and at
the last meeting in summer of 2013, discussed whether or not the pilot should be extended. The
group unanimously supported continuing the pilot, although there was not agreement on whether it
should be extended as-is or whether it should be modified to be more enticing, e.g., expanding the
PDOD boundary or lowering the point requirement on the performance matrix.
Since adoption of the first extension in September 2013, no formal outreach has taken place.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PDOD Pilot Boundary (PDF)
2. PDOD Ord 24 (PDF)
3. PDOD 2013 Feedback Summary (PDF)
4. Ordinance No. 115, 2013 (PDF)
5. Draft August 14, 2014 P&Z Minutes (PDF)
E PROSPECT RD
S SHIELDS ST
INTERSTATE 25
S COLLEGE AVE
E VINE DR
S TIMBERLINE RD
E DRAKE RD
E MULBERRY ST
E TRILBY RD
S LEMAY AVE
N SHIELDS ST
W DRAKE RD
W TRILBY RD
LAPORTE AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
W HARMONY RD
N COLLEGE AVE
E COUNTY ROAD 52
W MULBERRY ST
N LEMAY AVE
KECHTER RD
W HORSETOOTH RD
ZIEGLER RD
COUNTRY CLUB RD
N TIMBERLINE RD
E WILLOX LN
N COUNTY ROAD 11
TERRY LAKE RD
S SUMMIT VIEW DR
S COUNTY ROAD 7
S COUNTY ROAD 9
E COUNTY ROAD 36
S LEMAY AVE
Planned Development Pilot Boundary Overlay District (PDOD)
Legend
PDOD Pilot Boundary
PoudreRiver
Major Streets
Property Lines
ATTACHMENT 1
O
1
ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TEMPORARY
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, in February 2011, 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, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011/2012 Work
Program, which identifies a need for a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment,
City staff has prepared the Planned Development Overlay Zone District (“PDOD”),
which provides such flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability
goals are met; and
WHEREAS, the PDOD is being proposed as a pilot program to give the City an
opportunity to analyze its viability and, accordingly, is limited to a period of six months
for projects applying for the equivalent of a Project Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will have the opportunity to extend the proposed
PDOD in the event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been
insufficient development proposals presented to the City within the boundaries of the
PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the viability of the District; and
WHEREAS, City staff will evaluate the pilot program during and after its
existence and will report the outcomes to City Council; and
WHEREAS, based on City staff’s report, City Council will determine whether the
PDOD should be continued, amended, or terminated; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the
proposed Land Use Code changes regarding the PDOD and have recommended to the
City Council that they be adopted; and
ATTACHMENT 2
2
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 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 2.2.11(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.
Section 3. That Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
ATTACHMENT 2
3
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 4. 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 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.
(C) Process. A detailed 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:
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable.
ATTACHMENT 2
4
(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”,
and except that the law in effect at the time of filing of the
application shall govern, unless the director determines that it is in
the best interest of the City that this provision be waived.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable.
(13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for
approval of detailed development plans in the PDOD are
ATTACHMENT 2
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 detailed development plan.
2.15.2 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.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT 2
6
(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.
ATTACHMENT 2
7
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “complete
development plan” is referred to as “final plan”.
(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 5. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Division 4.29 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 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
Section D at the option of the developer. This Division 4.29 shall
be applicable only to an application for approval of a detailed
development plan which has been filed with the City on or before
September 9, 2013, unless said deadline has been extended by
subsequent ordinance of the City Council. No more than five (5)
applications shall be received and accepted for processing during
the effective term of this ordinance, which term ends on September
9, 2013; and the Director may determine to close the acceptance of
ATTACHMENT 2
8
applications prior to September 9, 2013, if necessary in order to
properly and adequately process and administer the applications
received.
(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.
ATTACHMENT 2
9
Figure 22
(B) Permitted Uses.
ATTACHMENT 2
10
(1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in
the PDOD.
(2) Any use permitted in any other zone district of the City will be
permitted, but 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; and
(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 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features in its entirety;
(4) Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources in its entirety;
(5) Section 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements in its
entirety; and
(6) Any development in the PDOD must also score at least sixty (60)
points from at least four (4) categories as established on the PDOD
performance matrix (Figure 23).
Figure 23
ATTACHMENT 2
11
Application of the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD) Performance Matrix
The following provides clarification as to the way in which 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 sixty (60) 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
ATTACHMENT 2
12
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.
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
3.5 See Section 3.2(E)(3) of the Land Use Code that details the considerations
associated with waterwise, or xeriscape, landscaping.
3.15
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
2.2
&
2.3
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.
2.8 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
1.4
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 and wood. Natural play areas must be
ATTACHMENT 2
13
designed for active play and preferably by a landscape architect.
Safety and Wellness
7.7
Floatable material 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,
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 material 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.
7.8 Fill shall mean a deposit of materials of any kind placed by artificial means.
7.9
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 60 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
design.
0 2 4
ATTACHMENT 2
14
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 design.
0 2 4
1.8
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote
the City’s culture, parks, and recreation policies: 0 2 4 8
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) -eighty (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
Employs 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
ATTACHMENT 2
15
3.3
Uses runoff from small rainfall events (total rainfall of .5 inches
or less) for landscape irrigation and/or onsite infiltration to
exceed minimum standards in the City’s Stormwater Criteria
Manual. Exceeds minimum standards by 25% (2 points);
exceeds minimum standards by 50% (4 points).
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 greater than the requirements
specified in 3.4.1.
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
3.15
Protects valuable features including creeks, significant trees and
wetlands and, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate such
16
removal.
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 the needs
and concerns of the adjacent area, 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
Whole Building Approach.
0 4
4.5
Utilizes alternative dispute resolution processes, e.g. mediation,
to engage surrounding neighbors in the project design process and
provide the City with a written assessment of the identified
concerns, and address how those are being addressed by the
project.
0 4
4.6 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote 0 2 4 8
17
the City’s high performing community policies:
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
6.4
Uses street-like private drives for internal roadway connections
where connections are not necessary to be public streets. 0 1 2
ATTACHMENT 2
18
6.5
Establishes 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 requirements specified in 3.2.2. 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 culvert or
bridge become blocked by debris during a 100-year flood.
0 2 4
7.7
Refrains from putting floatable materials on a site in the
floodplain fringe of any FEMA or City floodplain.* 0 2 4
ATTACHMENT 2
19
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
Section 6. This Ordinance shall terminate and be of no further force and
effect at the close of business on September 9, 2013 unless extended by ordinance of the
City Council.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th
day of February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of
February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of February, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting 1
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot
Summary of Feedback
The following summarizes input received from representatives of the local development
community:
PDOD does not provide enough incentive to warrant perceived additional process.
PDOD is viewed to add complexity without adequate incentives.
For clients that value sustainable design practices/LEED, they pursue those objectives
for their own reasons, not for PDOD incentives.
A density bonus could be very valuable to some projects, particularly in Midtown.
The flexibility adds subjectivity, meaning higher risk for developers.
Most developers want to avoid Type 2 reviews whenever possible.
In general, there is a lack of acknowledgment that building (redeveloping) to current
code is a huge gain in terms of site and building sustainability.
Performance Matrix is geared more towards new buildings – doesn’t make sense if
someone only wants to remodel/add on (too burdensome).
There is no incentive to try it – we have the modification and addition of a permitted
use processes, and with those, you don’t have the matrix to contend with.
Unproven, no one wants to be the guinea pig.
PDOD does not address the appeal process – provides no additional degree of certainty
for developers.
The “ask” (matrix) is not proportional to the “gain” provided by PDOD (limited code
flexibility).
Pilot boundary is too limiting.
PDOD would be most useful for sites with legitimate land use issues, e.g., a parcel with
two different zonings, but the boundary currently applies only to the City’s most liberal
zone districts.
The input above was provided to the citizen Taskforce, and the following summarizes input
from the ensuing discussion:
The perception that PDOD does not provide enough incentive to outweigh the risk is
not surprising. Elements of PDOD were changed for the pilot that stripped away some
of its usefulness, e.g., increasing the minimum matrix points to 60, reducing the
boundary, and eliminating the opt-in process.
o As a counterpoint, some felt the changes that narrowed the pilot, e.g.,
eliminating the opt-in process, were good changes, particularly for
neighborhoods.
Modifications are not so difficult to get approved that a developer would use PDOD to
avoid that process.
The City should really make an effort to quantify the differential in terms of costs
between the existing development review process and PDOD.
The pilot boundary is too limiting.
ATTACHMENT 3
August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting 2
Both neighbors and developers are nervous about using an untested process.
There may be a disconnect between what the City wants in terms of established urban
infill policies, and what general public wants.
Seems like a general misunderstanding that using the PDOD automatically means
you’ll get a higher density project.
East Mulberry would be a great area for the PDOD, but it is not currently within city
limits.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
August 14, 2014
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407
Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs and Schneider
Absent: Kirkpatrick, Heinz
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Burnett, Beals, Wilkinson, Mapes, Langenberger, and
Cosmas
Agenda Review
Chair Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the following processes:
While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration,
citizen input is valued and appreciated.
The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for
each item.
Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with
city Land Use Code.
Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will
be allowed for that as well.
This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure
that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Director Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas and also explained
the consent/discussion procedure to the audience.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda:
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, spoke in favor of the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
extension that was discussed at last week’s Planning and Zoning work session. He stated that he
believes PDOD is the best tool the City currently has for community planning, residential input, and
community input. He stated that the property in question has been designated as “blighted” because it is
an infill site. He has a project started but has been having problems with the Storm Water Department
regarding the flood plain on the property. He has tried to come up with designs that would work around
the flood plain issues to no avail. He is asking the Planning and Zoning Board to overturn the City
Council recommendations and extend the PDOD timeline.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 2
Don Schlagel, 1131 Lindemeier, is also in favor of extending PDOD in support of the project that Mr.
Willis discussed. He has a family farm within the boundary and stated that he has had flood issues,
transportation issues, storm water and blight issues.
Judy Scherpelz, 2519 S. Shields Street, is the Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Raptor
Program, and she asked the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend to City Council an extension of
the PDOD pilot program deadline. She reviewed the purpose of the PDOD and how she is excited about
the potential development project for this area which she believes will improve the tax base, increase
jobs, infrastructure and amenities for the City of Ft. Collins.
Director Kadrich stated that the citizen comments were similar to last year’s comments and, even though
the City Staff has done considerable outreach since the last extension, no project applications have been
received. In addition, several developers have indicated that they believe it would be better to use the
current APU tools (modification process) instead of continuing this pilot program. This was a
controversial ordinance to begin with, and the Staff recommendation would be to let the pilot expire.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the Planning and Zoning Board may consider taking a formal
vote during the “Other Business” segment instead of now.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from July 10, 2014, P&Z Hearing
Public Input:
None noted.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the August 14, 2014,
Consent agenda as presented, which includes the minutes from the July 10, 2014, Planning and
Zoning Board hearing. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. The Center at Rigden Farm – Extension Request
3. Harmony & I-25 ODP #140001
Project: The Center at Rigden Farm – Extension Request
Project Description: This is a request for consideration a third one year extension, to August 31, 2015,
of the approved Final Plan for the Rigden Farm 14th Filing also known as The Center at Rigden Farm.
The project is on an entire city block bounded by four streets: Limon Drive, Custer Drive, Iowa Drive, and
Illinois Drive and has been approved for 8 mixed-use buildings totaling 95,000 square feet on 5.9 gross
acres.
Recommendation: Approval
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 3
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff and Applicant Presentations
City Planner Beals made a brief presentation to the Board demonstrating why this third one-year
extension request should be approved, including a history of the project and past extensions. Don Tiller,
Applicant and Owner, also gave a presentation, which included area maps, history of the project,
architecture, and plans for the future. He explained the purpose and justification of the request and
stated he is very optimistic about the future of the project.
Public Input
None noted.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Schneider asked whether the transfer of deed for this extension request is due to a self-inflicted
issue. Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded by saying that exceptional situations can warrant
extension requests, not just physical situations. He also stated that he does not feel this is an
unreasonable request. The Board can also approve an extension with the condition of a lesser period of
time. The Applicant stated that a shorter period of time may result in other issues. Member Schneider
also asked if this extension would conflict with any other projects within the City charter. Deputy City
Attorney Eckman responded that there should not be any potential conflicts from the Board’s decision to
extend. Member Hansen asked if a condition could be added for a time requirement to start the work;
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that a dual condition could be imposed with starting and completion
requirements. Member Hart restated that he believes the extension period should include all activity.
Board Deliberation
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the extension of Final
Plan vested rights to Rigden Farm 14th Filing (The Center at Rigden Farm) through August 31,
2015. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Chair Carpenter stated that she will support the motion.
Vote: 5:0.
Project: Harmony & I-25 ODP #140001
Project Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for 264 acres at the
southwest quadrant of Harmony Road and Interstate 25. The plan area extends one mile southward
from Harmony Road to Kechter Road, and ½ mile westward from I-25 to Strauss Cabin Road. While the
scope of the ODP includes 264 acres, it only outlines proposed land uses and infrastructure within a 56-
acre Limit of Development at the southeast corner of the Harmony and Strauss Cabin Road intersection.
This is the portion of the property that is not in a floodway and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor. The
remainder of the property outside of this Limit of Development is either in a floodway or is zoned R-U-L,
Rural Lands, or both. For this remainder, the ODP states “future land uses to be determined” in future
amendments pending further study and work on complex hydraulic issues and possible strategies.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 4
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Staff and Applicant Presentations:
City Planner Mapes made a presentation for the approval of the Overall Development Plan (ODP) for this
project. He included visual aids: zoning maps, flood plains, street patterns, natural features, drainage
master plan, and other transportation connections. He spoke of remedies for the pond and flood plain
situation (appropriate land uses and Harmony Corridor plan inclusions). The ODP only includes 56 of
the 122 acres for development, and this acreage has a defined limit of development. He outlined land
use and transportation parameters that will occur over time.
Brian Williamson, with TST Consulting Engineers, is the Applicant – he did not give a presentation but
offered to help answer any questions from the Board.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Hobbs asked if this development is in harmony with the State Mine Land Reclamation Board’s
Reclamation Plan. Mr. Williamson responded that there is no conflict at this time; the bond money for
enforcing that reclamation went bankrupt, leaving no money to enforce that reclamation plan.
Public Input
Walt Lyons, 4022 Rock Creek Drive, has a concern that, while there is an opportunity to make this
project a “gateway” to Fort Collins, he is worried about the issue of the reclamation of the water body.
He would like to see the ultimate use incorporate the existing water bodies into their plans. He also
stated that the future land uses for the southern part of the property are still too vague. His land, which
borders this project, has no curb, although the City has assessed development fees for that already.
Unfortunately, rains are producing flooding issues, and putting in a curb would be very beneficial.
Shu Zhang, 4020 Rock Creek Drive, has a concern about flooding issues. He doesn’t want to lose the
lake, and he is concerned that exercising/bicycling along the lake will be a problem in the future. He
wants to maintain the beauty of the area.
Marcio Texeim, 5096 Northern Lights Drive, is requesting that the project be open, modern and pretty.
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, questioned how a development project could be proposed in a
community-protected open space and whether this project is compatible with other surrounding areas.
He believes density may be too high in such a confined location.
Seth Pickett, 4036 Big Dipper Drive, has traffic concerns, especially since traffic is already an issue. He
questioned how future traffic will be mitigated.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 5
Staff/Applicant Response
Planner Mapes responded to the citizen’s concerns:
Regarding the beauty of the project, he stated that the plans will be provided according to the
Harmony Corridor Plans for the natural area setting with emphasis on the river valley. The
applicant team is in agreement with this plan.
Regarding the question of when curbs will be installed, Planner Mapes indicated they will be
installed during subsequent development plans. Chair Carpenter clarified that the curb issue will
occur at the PDP/Final Plan level.
Planner Mapes showed a slide of the city structure plan, which showed the location of the
property and reflects the special land treatments set forth in the Poudre River Corridor plan. The
Applicant also stated that there is a significant level of effort that will be going into developing this
area. The floodway will be developed over an 18-month to a 2-year process before land uses
can be proposed. The south area of the plan has had some neglect (it is currently zoned as rural
lands). Modifications to the City Plan will have to be made before rezoning.
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, addressed the traffic concerns brought up by citizens. She stated
that only a Master Traffic Study (a rough overview) had been completed so far in order to get a basic
idea of the traffic levels. She stated that they are scrutinizing Harmony Road, improvements at Strauss
Cabin Road, lane-widening on Strauss Cabin Road, and accesses on Strauss Cabin Road. Detailed
traffic studies will be performed at the PDP stage.
Member Hobbs asked the Applicant about the status of the current land owner relative to water rights
necessary for the evaporative loss from the ponds and whether the filling of the ponds is being required
by a state agency or by a water court. The Applicant responded by saying that filling of the ponds is one
step of a substitute water supply plan to bring the property in conformance with the State Engineer’s
office. The developer is working on the substitute water supply plan and an extension has been received
for 91 days (through late October).
Member Hart asked Staff to clarify that tonight’s decision only applies to the 56 acres in question.
Planner Mapes confirmed this and added that the other property areas will be considered at a later date.
Planner Mapes also stated that other areas may not be pulled out of the floodway, which is why they are
not designating land uses for those sections at this time. Planner Mapes clarified that this area is not a
community-protected open space, but had been offered to the City’s natural resources programs several
times; due to some complex reasons (liability issues), these areas have never accepted these offers.
Board Deliberation
Members Schneider, Hobbs, Hansen, and Hart stated that they will support the ODP for this 56-acre plot.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Harmony & I-25
ODP #140001 based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report. Member
Hansen seconded the motion. Chair Carpenter stated she will also support the ODP at this time.
Vote: 5:0.
At 7:12pm, Chair Carpenter asked for a 10-minute recess. The hearing resumed at 7:25pm.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 6
Other Business
PDOD Discussion
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, began by stating that the land use zoning is very unpredictable. He
believes that the PDOD process will allow flexibility in zoning uses and is superior to the APU process.
He conceded that the current projects may not have zoning conflicts, and PDOD probably wouldn’t work
for those types of projects. He stated that he feels PDOD is still a viable possibility. He cited City storm
water as an ongoing issue.
Board Deliberation
There was some discussion of the history of the PDOD pilot program, the outreach involved, and the
controversial aspects of the project. Director Kadrich added more information about how the City Staff
has been involved from the start of this project over the last two years. Chair Carpenter reiterated that
the Planning and Zoning Board can only make a recommendation to City Council, who will make the final
decision on whether this pilot program should be allowed to sunset. Deputy City Attorney Eckman
confirmed that the Board is making a recommendation that will currently affect only one development
project at this time, and he also reviewed the dates of each past extension. Several Board members
discussed the pilot timeline, the time invested by staff for promoting this tool, and staff’s impression of the
quality and usefulness of this tool.
Planning Manager Gloss stated that he believes that the Land Use Code is currently providing the
needed zoning tools at this time; however, he is interested in finding a balance between predictability
and flexibility. The Board members discussed the benefits of maintaining this pilot program, even though
the pilot program has only been utilized by one company, perhaps due to its complexity. Planning
Manager Gloss stated there is a heavier responsibility on the part of the applicant, rather than the staff.
Member Hansen stated that he understood that several developers did not see the value in using this
tool, and perhaps the right project had not been initiated yet.
Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City
Council to extend the pilot program for the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) for one
additional year to expire on September 9, 2015. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Member
Hobbs will support the extension to show appreciation to City staff and the time that has been put into
this project, while Chair Carpenter is not fully convinced that an extension is the right choice. Vote: 5:0.
APU Discussion Follow-Up
Planning Manager Gloss presented a summary memorandum, and he recapped by saying the Addition
of Permitted Use (APU) process will also be updated during the City Plan Update. He is considering the
APU updates using a 3-point approach to addressing the citizen comments:
1. Paying closer attention to conditioning APU applications (allowing Board to impose conditions
which will ensure compatibility).
2. Allowing the Board to add conditions: a concern raised by residents was that certain uses could
be retained for long periods of time. By creating a “permit-type” system, he believes these areas
could be strengthened to provide greater control over uses to enhance compliance and promote
compatibility.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2014
Page 7
3. Examining our Home Occupation code could potentially reduce the number of APUs and result in
a greater number of home-based businesses.
Public Input
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, first commended Board members on their diligence, and then
asked the Board to reconsider their position on the APU. He doesn’t think the APU should be so
restrictive, and he considers the process to be biased against residential citizens.
Board Deliberation
Director Kadrich stated that the Board was not opposed to a conditional use permit process; however,
the Board felt it should be done in conjunction with City Plan updates and not as a stand-alone effort,
due to the complexity of creating the zoning tables that establish conditional and permitted uses. There
was some discussion regarding the feelings of the neighbors, the time frame for making changes, and
the amount of work required. Unforeseen uses could still be considered and added later. Several Board
members commented that the APU is a useful tool that can benefit communities but that it still needs to
be refined, especially due to its complexity. Chair Carpenter concluded by acknowledging the positive
actions taken by citizens and staff to improve the APU process. Planning Manager Gloss stated that
there will be a list of Fall code changes that will come before the Planning and Zoning Board sometime
later in the year.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2013, WHICH AMENDED THE
LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TEMPORARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the City Council adopted on second reading
Ordinance No. 024, 2013, amending the Land Use Code by the addition of a temporary Planned
Development Overlay Zone District (“PDOD”); and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 024, 2013, provides that, at the end of the pilot program,
City staff will evaluate the program and report the outcomes to the City Council and, based on
staff's report, the City Council will determine whether the PDOD should be continued, amended
or terminated; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, no applications have been
filed with the City for the processing of a development proposal under the PDOD and, therefore,
no report has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 115, 2013,
extending Ordinance No. 024, 2013 to September 9, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the
PDOD be extended for one additional year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to
extend the PDOD adopted by Ordinance No. 024, 2013, for one additional year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Ordinance No. 024, 2013, amending the Land Use Code by the
addition of a PDOD shall remain in effect until September 9, 2015, whereupon it shall terminate
and be of no further force and effect unless extended by ordinance of the City Council.
Section 2. That Section 4.29 (A)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22) shall be
eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in subsection (D) at
the option of the developer. This Division shall be applicable only to an
application for approval of a detailed development plan which has been
filed with the City on or before September 9, 20142015, unless said
deadline has been extended by subsequent ordinance of the City Council.
No more than five (5) applications shall be received and accepted for
- 2 -
processing during the effective term of this ordinance, which term ends on
September 9, 20142015; and the Director may determine to close the
acceptance of applications prior to September 9, 20142015, if necessary in
order to properly and adequately process and administer the applications
received.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of
September, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of September, A.D.
2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of September, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
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
0 2 4
ATTACHMENT 2