Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/26/2013 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYDATE: February 26, 2013 STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or Clarify Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned Overlay Development District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth. Properties within 1,000 feet of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have been removed from the pilot. This Ordinance has been amended since First Reading based on input from City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board, as follows: • Properties owned by Colorado State University and Colorado State Research Foundation have been removed from the pilot boundary. • Several properties north of Vine Drive and west of North Lemay Avenue have been added from the pilot boundary. • The minimum number of points required on the performance matrix has been raised to 60. Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance. These Ordinances were adopted on First Reading on February 12, 2013 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson). BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Although both Ordinances were adopted on First Reading, City Council asked staff to address two issues before bringing Ordinance No. 024 back for Second Reading: the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot boundary and justification for the 45-point minimum on the performance matrix. PDOD Boundary When the PDOD was originally proposed, any projects within a defined boundary (original boundary) would have the option to use the PDOD, and there was a provision that allowed properties outside the boundary to “opt-in” provided certain site criteria were met. During public outreach when the pilot was proposed, concerns were raised over some areas that were included in the boundary including historic districts, residential properties, and properties near the Poudre River. Consequently, when the PDOD pilot was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation in 2012, the Board recommended certain areas be removed from the boundary. Then, based on additional conversations with Councilmembers, the pilot boundary was reduced further. At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, a citizen requested that property be added into the pilot boundary; this includes land where the current Raptor Center is located (zoned Industrial and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) as well as the adjacent Schlagel property (also zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood). Additionally, Council questioned why Colorado State University (CSU) property was included in the boundary, particularly if CSU is not required to adhere to the City’s development review process. This also brought into question land owned by Colorado State Research Foundation (CSRF) that was in the pilot boundary. While Council was receptive to adding the property February 26, 2013 -2- ITEM 7 mentioned above and removing CSU and CSRF property, staff was requested to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Board for a formal recommendation prior to Second Reading. The Board will provide a recommendation regarding the boundary at its February 21 meeting, and the outcome and draft minutes will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading on February 26, 2013. Attachment 2 is a map showing the original PDOD boundary and the proposed amended boundary for comparison. Performance Matrix The most unique aspect of the PDOD is the performance matrix, which was designed as a menu of site and building options that rewards applicants via a point system for exceeding minimum Code standards or providing public benefits. The matrix is divided into seven categories that mirror the seven categories of City Plan, and, in addition to meeting the General Standards in Article III of the Land Use Code, an applicant must achieve at least 45 points in at least four different categories to be considered for approval. At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, the justification for establishing 45 points as the minimum was questioned, and staff was asked to provide more information explaining why that number was chosen. When the matrix was first developed, staff retrospectively tested several projects to understand how they would score. Attachment 3 provides a spreadsheet showing the projects that have been evaluated and their respective matrix scores. Note that the project evaluations were based on staff’s best knowledge of each project, and the scores were not confirmed with the developer/owner. Based on those outcomes, 45 points was viewed at the time to be sufficient to ensure quality while not being overly-burdensome to applicants. It is important to keep in mind that all the items in the matrix are above existing minimum standards; one of the concerns raised during public outreach was that the PDOD would add costs as a result. This is a specific concern that the pilot is intended to address, and could be an aspect of the PDOD that is recommended to change based on the pilot outcomes. The Planning and Zoning Board discussed the matrix at its February 15, 2013 work session and, based on the outcomes of the test projects, recommends increasing the minimum point requirement to 60. The Board’s formal recommendation will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading on February 26, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - February 12, 2013 (w/o attachments) 2. Map with the original PDOD boundary and proposed amended boundary 3. Matrix of test projects and their matrix scores 4. Powerpoint presentation COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: February 12, 2013 STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Laurie Kadrich, Megan Bolin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or Clarify Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned Overlay Development District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth. Properties within 1,000 feet of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have been removed from the pilot. Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Development of a flexible zoning tool for infill development and redevelopment is listed as a “near-term action” in the 2011 City Plan update and was a priority project in the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 work program. Staff has worked closely with stakeholders and the Planning and Zoning Board throughout 2011-2012 to assess the challenges associated with infill/redevelopment in terms of the existing Land Use Code (LUC) and review process. Based on these discussions, staff has crafted the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a new regulatory approach that offers performance-based development flexibility. What is the PDOD? The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is intended to provide an alternative to conventional land development regulations and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes the context of surrounding development into consideration. It blends the planning concept of Planned Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning to provide flexibility to infill development or redevelopment projects challenged by existing site constraints. A unique aspect of the PDOD is how it infuses the principles of City Plan into private sector development using a performance matrix. The matrix is a menu of site and building considerations that encourage an applicant to think beyond minimum LUC regulations and incorporate the community’s broad sustainability goals into the project. Additional detail about the purpose of the PDOD and how it is designed can be found in Attachment 1. Pilot Details Until spring 2012, the intention was to consider adopting the PDOD permanently as a new, optional zoning overlay. However, because the PDOD is a new and unique tool for Fort Collins in terms of regulating infill/redevelopment projects, staff is proposing that it first be tested on a temporary basis as a pilot. The benefits of pursuing the pilot include the following: COPY COPY COPY COPY February 12, 2013 -2- ITEM 4 • Allows for real-life project test-cases that will provide staff and stakeholders the opportunity to make a valuable evaluation of the review process. • Provides time to consider any necessary changes to the PDOD that would improve it. • Determines whether the PDOD is a viable tool for infill/redevelopment. Adopting the pilot Ordinance allows for temporary implementation of the PDOD. Projects that are within the defined boundary area would have six months to submit a Detailed Development Plan (DDP - the PDOD equivalent to a Project Development Plan). The ability to submit a DDP would end after the six month period and, at that point, the focus would be on completing the review process for those projects and evaluating whether the PDOD process worked as intended. Six months was chosen because it is a reasonable timeframe for eligible projects to submit but, at the same time, is restrictive enough that the City would not be overwhelmed with PDOD projects. Furthermore, the pilot limits the number of applications accepted within the six month pilot. Only five DDP applications will be accepted, and the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director has the ability to no longer accept applications if staff’s capacity to adequately review the projects is reached. Additional highlights of the Ordinance include: • Establishes the option for City Council to extend the pilot should there be an insufficient number of projects submitted to properly evaluate the PDOD. • Commits staff to report to City Council after the pilot projects are evaluated on the effectiveness of the PDOD. Pilot Evaluation The primary purpose of pursuing the pilot would be to evaluate whether the PDOD is functioning as intended, and staff is proposing to create a task force of stakeholders to meet and evaluate all PDOD pilot projects. While a specific time period of six months is proposed for up to five DDP applications, the evaluation period will not have a specific end date primarily because it is unknown how long it will take projects to complete the review process. However, staff will commit to providing a preliminary report to City Council by first quarter 2014. The task force will work with staff to collect as much information as necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about the viability of the PDOD. If necessary, the task force will make recommendations for ways to improve PDOD and would report to City Council. Evaluation of the PDOD pilot would be inclusive of those applicants who choose the PDOD and those who do not. It will be valuable to understand what reasons, if any, eligible PDOD projects choose the standard review process. For those projects that do choose the PDOD, evaluation would include quantitative and qualitative data from the perspective of staff, P&Z, the applicant, and residents/affected property owners. A list of potential evaluation questions is provided in Attachment 2. These questions will be further refined with the task force. In summary, key features of the proposed PDOD pilot include: • Only projects within the boundary can apply. • Up to five Detailed Development Plan (Project Development Plan equivalent) submittals will be accepted during the six-month pilot period. • The term of vested rights upon approval of a Detailed Development Plan (Final Plan equivalent) would be 3 years, which is the same term as any standard development. • While some flexibility is afforded for certain Sections of Article 3 (General Development Standards), three specific Sections must be complied with in their entirety: N 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features N 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources N 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements • PDOD projects do not have to comply with Article 4 (Districts). • In addition to compliance with Article 3 standards, PDOD projects must achieve a total of 45 points within 4 out of 7 categories on the performance matrix. • The modification of standards process will not apply to PDOD projects. • City Council could extend the pilot if an insufficient number of projects submit during the six-month application period. COPY COPY COPY COPY February 12, 2013 -3- ITEM 4 Pilot Boundary Prior to the proposed pilot, the PDOD was originally intended to apply to any project within a specified boundary area (the original boundary was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted infill and redevelopment areas and the Transit Oriented Development Overlay); additionally, it allowed for properties outside the boundary to “opt-in” provided certain site criteria was met. During public outreach meetings, concerns were raised by some over certain areas that were included in the originally proposed PDOD boundary. Specific concerns include the potential negative impacts on historic resources, established residential neighborhoods, and the Poudre River. Although PDOD projects are required to meet the majority of existing standards, it is unknown how the flexibility provided in terms of land use and dimensional regulations, e.g., height, setbacks, would affect the project itself and surrounding properties. The primary intent of the pilot is to allow for real projects to use the PDOD to examine whether these concerns are justified. Thus, certain areas specifically raised as concerns are proposed to be removed from the pilot, and the “opt-in” feature would not be offered. The following areas would be excluded from the Pilot: • The Laurel School Historic District • The Old Town Historic District • Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District • Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District • 1,000 feet on both sides of the Poudre River; and • Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado State Research Foundation located south of Prospect Road and west of South College Avenue. While this limited boundary is proposed for the pilot, the evaluation will explore whether this tool should be expanded to other areas of Fort Collins. See Attachment 3 for a map of the proposed PDOD pilot boundary. Ordinance Amending Article 3 “General Standards” Ordinance No. 025, 2013, amends several Sections of Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments and thus require a separate Ordinance. The PDOD provides some flexibility from existing Article 3 standards by requiring that only the “General Standards” of certain Sections apply. Upon close examination of Article 3, staff found that not all Sections have a “General Standard”. Therefore, to provide consistency and also to create the proper development standards for potential PDOD projects, the amendments in this Ordinance create “General Standards” where they were missing, and make some revisions to existing “General Standards” for clarification purposes. 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 was raised during public outreach 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 LUC 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 COPY COPY COPY COPY February 12, 2013 -4- ITEM 4 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On June 21, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt both Ordinances (Attachment 4). In terms of the boundary for the PDOD pilot, the Board recommends removing the following from the boundary area: • Laurel School Historic District • Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land • Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land • Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect and College. At its June 13, 2012, meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 5). With regard to the boundary, the LPC recommends removing the following from the boundary area: • Laurel School Historic District • Old Town Historic District • Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land • Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land • Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect and College • Properties within a 1,000 foot buffer of the Poudre River On June 20, 2012, the Economic Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 6). With regard to the boundary, the Commission recommends maintaining the boundary as originally proposed by staff. At its meeting on May 16, 2012, the Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend the PDOD Pilot. At the time of this meeting, boundary revisions were not being considered; therefore, the Transportation Board did not have the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment 7). On May 21, 2012, the Air Quality Advisory Board voted 5-1 (one member abstained) to recommend the PDOD Pilot. Like the Transportation Board, boundary revisions were not being considered at the time of this meeting; therefore, the Board did not have the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment 8). PUBLIC OUTREACH Over the past year, input has been solicited on the PDOD from a variety of stakeholder groups. General sentiments of support and concerns are summarized below. Note that whether an item reflects support or concern may vary depending on the perspective of the stakeholder. Support • Does not restrict land use to the underlying zoning. • Provides flexibility from prescriptive, metric standards. • Allows the context of sites to be taken into consideration during design. • Considers and rewards projects that incorporate public benefits or go beyond code minimums. • Removes the need to apply for separate modifications of standards or an addition of a permitted use. • Encourages infill development and redevelopment in targeted areas. COPY COPY COPY COPY February 12, 2013 -5- ITEM 4 • Provides developers the option to meet with P&Z prior to submitting an application. Concerns • Reduces predictability in terms of land use. • Relies on subjective verses metric interpretations of development standards. • Requires all projects to be processed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review. • Mandates that projects go beyond minimum standards and include public benefits which may add cost. • Diminishes the effectiveness of existing regulations, e.g., historic preservation or river buffers, by providing a flexible application of other development standards. • Developers can “game” the point system on the performance matrix. A public open house was held on May 7, 2012 in order to solicit input on the PDOD and introduce the pilot concept. A summary of comments received is included in Attachment 9. Additionally, the following stakeholders were consulted in the development of the PDOD: • City Council • Planning and Zoning Board • Developers/Brokers via the Urban Renewal Authority luncheon • South Fort Collins Business Association • Landmark Preservation Commission • Air Quality Advisory Board • Local Planning Consultants • Climate Wise Business Partners • Natural Resources Advisory Board • Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee • Fort Collins Board of Realtors • Transportation Board • Save the Poudre, see letter to City leaders (Attachment 10) • North Fort Collins Business Association • Economic Advisory Commission • City staff ATTACHMENTS 1. Detailed PDOD Background Information 2. PDOD Pilot Evaluation Questions 3. PDOD Pilot Boundary Map 4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2012 5. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, June 13, 2012 6. Economic Advisory Commission minutes, June 20, 2012 7. Transportation Board minutes, May 16, 2012 8. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, May 21, 2012 9. Public Meeting Feedback, May 7, 2012 10. Save the Poudre letter, June 5, 2012 11. City Council Work Session Summary, June 14, 2011 12. City Council Work Session Summary, January 31, 2012 13. Powerpoint presentation S SHIELDS ST INTERSTATE 25 S COLLEGE AVE E VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RD E PROSPECT RD E DRAKE RD E MULBERRY ST E HORSETOOTH RD 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 E HARMONY RD N COLLEGE AVE E COUNTY ROAD 52 W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD N LEMAY AVE KECHTER RD W HORSETOOTH RD ZIEGLER RD W VINE DR COUNTRY CLUB RD N TIMBERLINE RD N US HIGHWAY 287 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E WILLOX LN GREGORY RD STRAUSS CABIN RD N COUNTY ROAD 11 W WILLOX LN MOUNTAIN VISTA DR TERRY LAKE RD S SUMMIT VIEW DR S COUNTY ROAD 7 9TH ST S COUNTY ROAD 9 E COUNTY ROAD 36 E COUNTY ROAD 50 INTERSTATE 25 ZIEGLER RD S LEMAY AVE Planned Development Pilot Boundary Overlay District (PDOD) Legend PDODOriginal Boundary PDOD Pilot Boundary Property Lines Major Streets I ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 3 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot City Council, Second Reading February 26, 2013 ATTACHMENT 4 2 Action Items 2nd Reading: • Amended Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot – Pilot boundary – Minimum point requirement for performance matrix • Ordinance making amendments to Land Use Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards” 3 Pilot Details • 6-month application period (Mar-Sep 2013) • Up to 5 applications accepted • Council may extend application period • Evaluation during and after pilot with taskforce, report to Council first quarter 2014 • Must be within boundary 4 Pilot Boundary • Green = original boundary • Red = 2nd Reading pilot boundary • Includes Raptor Center and Schlagel properties • Excludes CSU and CSRF properties Prospect Harmony Vine Lemay Shields Horsetooth 5 Performance Matrix • PDOD projects must achieve points from the performance matrix in addition to complying with Article 3 • Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) recommended increasing the minimum point requirement •1st Reading Ordinance, minimum = 45 points •2nd Reading Ordinance, minimum = 60 points 6 Board/Commission Recommendations • Adopt PDOD Pilot Ordinance – P&Z – Economic Advisory Commission – Transportation Board – Landmark Preservation Commission – Air Quality Advisory Board • P&Z recommends adoption of the amended Ordinance 7 Staff Recommendation • Adopt amended Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot • Adopt Ordinance making amendments to Land Use Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards” 8 Thank You 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 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: 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 9 Figure 22 (B) Permitted Uses. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1 ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO ADD OR CLARIFY CERTAIN “GENERAL STANDARDS” AND “PURPOSE” STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY 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, City staff has prepared a Planned Development Overlay District, which provides such flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability goals are met; and WHEREAS, in the development of the Planned Development Overlay District, certain discrepancies were noticed within the Land Use Code regarding missing “General Standards” within Article 3; and WHEREAS, in order to properly implement the Planned Development Overlay District and to provide overall consistency within the Land Use Code, City staff has prepared “General Standards” where ones were missing or made amendments to existing “General Standards” for clarity; 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: 2 Section 1. 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 2. 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 materials. . . . (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 3. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.3 Water Quality 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 4. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.4 Noise and Vibration 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. 3 Section 5. 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 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 system of parks, trail and recreation facilities as the community grows. Establishment of the facilities in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan shall generally provide the same level of service to new portions of the community as the existing community enjoys. (C) 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 6. 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) 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. 4 . . . Section 7. That Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (A) Purpose. The 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 8. 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. (B) General Standard. Mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall provide significant architectural interest and shall not have a single, large, dominant building mass. The street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian scale in order to establish attractive street fronts and walkways. Walkways shall be designed principally for the purpose of accommodating pedestrians and pedestrian connections while secondarily 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 9. 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 . . . 5 (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 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 10. 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 11. 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 12. That Section 3.6.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which reads in their entirety as follows with the current subsections (A) through (M) renumbered accordingly: 6 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements (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 to operate, 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. . . . 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 7 Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of February, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 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