Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/12/2013 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYDATE: 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: • Allows for real-life project test-cases that will provide staff and stakeholders the opportunity to make a valuable evaluation of the review process. February 12, 2013 -2- ITEM 4 • 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. 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 February 12, 2013 -3- ITEM 4 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 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 February 12, 2013 -4- ITEM 4 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. • 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. February 12, 2013 -5- ITEM 4 • 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Planned Development Overlay District – Overview February 2013 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Problem Statement The prescriptive nature of the Land Use Code (LUC) routinely hinders infill development and/or redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from greenfield (previously undeveloped sites) to infill development, unique and more frequent design challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility to achieve desirable, high- quality projects. Why is PDOD Needed? The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) originated from the desire to provide an alternative, flexible development review process for infill development and redevelopment. Infill and redevelopment projects tend to be more complex than greenfield projects due to unique engineering and design challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and an established neighborhood context. While a prescriptive LUC works well for greenfield sites, often times infill/redevelopment projects simply can not meet quantitative standards because of existing site conditions. The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) has recognized the need for flexibility for some time, as evidenced by the Board’s 2011 work plan item, which states: “The Board believes a flexible zoning tool would be useful in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to develop in a high quality fashion while addressing the various issues and interests related to infill development that presents unique challenges.” City Council also recognized the need for flexibility and adopted policy EH 4.2 in City Plan which speaks to the need to develop a new, flexible tool for infill/redevelopment. What is the PDOD? The PDOD would be a new overlay zone district within the LUC that would provide an alternative to conventional land development and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes the context of surrounding development into consideration. The PDOD blends the planning concept of Planned Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning, and emphasizes collaboration between applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City staff during development review processing. This tool would be most effective in infill/redevelopment areas that are challenged by existing site constraints such as irregular lot shape or size, topography, and/or context. The PDOD boundary was drawn to include areas previously identified as targeted infill and redevelopment areas in City Plan, as well as the area defined as the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay because of its emphasis on creating a more urban and less auto-oriented environment along the spine of the city. For the pilot, an applicant within the PDOD boundary would have the option to use the PDOD process; the pilot period would be six months long, and up to five Detailed Development Plan (the PDOD Project Development Plan equivalent) applications would be accepted. How is the PDOD Different? There are several characteristics of the PDOD that set it apart from standard LUC development review. ATTACHMENT 1 Planned Development Overlay District – Overview February 2013 2 Development Standards One difference is the design flexibility afforded to PDOD development. Design flexibility is sometimes needed for infill/redevelopment due to pre-existing conditions, such as existing infrastructure, buildings, and neighborhood context. In some cases, it can be next to impossible to fit a new project into a well established area; and certainly more difficult than to “start fresh” on a greenfield site. Currently, projects must comply with Article 4, Districts, which regulates permitted uses, and Article 3, General Development Standards. Article 4 contains the majority of the prescriptive, metric/dimensional standards that can create challenges for infill/redevelopment because no consideration is given for the context or constraints of a site. In order to provide maximum design flexibility, PDOD projects would be exempt from complying with Article 4 standards. Article 3 covers all of the basic elements of development and provides standards for considerations such as site planning and design, buildings, environment, natural areas, and transportation, among others. Within each of the Article 3 Sections is a “General Standard”, typically followed by more prescriptive standards that specify exactly how to meet the “General Standard”. The following is an example of an Article 3 “General Standard” and prescriptive standard from Section 3.5.2, Residential Building Standards:  General Standard: Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high priority on buildings’ entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human scaled elements, architectural articulation and, in projects containing more than one building, design variation.  Prescriptive Standard: A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be required for any single- family detached dwelling if the garage and/or driveway is served by access from the abutting street, unless such lot also adjoins an alley or is located at the corner of two public streets. PDOD projects will be required to comply with Article 3; however, to provide additional design flexibility, projects will only need to comply with the “General Standard” of certain Sections. Specific Sections to be complied with in their entirety include:  3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources;  3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features; and  3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, and Alleyways. A unique aspect of the PDOD is how it would infuse the principles of City Plan into private sector development. In addition to meeting the “General Standards” in Article 3, PDOD projects must achieve at least 45 points in 4 out of 7 categories on a performance matrix. The matrix was modeled after several examples of similar tools being used in other communities and ATTACHMENT 1 Planned Development Overlay District – Overview February 2013 3 sustainability-focused organizations. It is designed to provide a quantifiable aspect of PDOD projects to supplement the broad, qualitative “General Standards”. The matrix is a menu of site and building features/techniques that would requires applicants to incorporate public benefits into their project. It is divided into seven categories that mirror the seven components of City Plan. The following describes the general concepts for encouragement for each category:  Culture, Parks and Recreation – public art, historic preservation, recreation opportunities  Economic Health – job creation, targeted redevelopment  Environmental Health – energy efficiency, natural resource protection/conservation  High Performing Community – civic engagement, participation in City programs  Livability – mixed-use, building form/design  Safety and Wellness – community gardens, floodplain and fire safety  Transportation – connectivity, multi-modal options, parking Each item within the categories is weighted depending on its value in terms of accomplishing the goals of City Plan. Items that are less valuable may receive 1 or 2 points; more valuable items may receive 2 or 4 points. Within each category is a blank criterion that is designed to reward applicant innovation or outstanding performance. The applicant innovation component is intended to acknowledge that staff, at the time of the PDOD pilot, could not possibly have included every potential design/process technique that provides a benefit to the community. As such, the blank criterion was created to allow the applicant to be creative and incorporate something new/different than what is available to choose from within the matrix. Furthermore, points may be rewarded for outstanding performance. This component is intended to provide extra points for an applicant that goes above and beyond within a particular category; for example, an applicant that provides all residential units to low income households could gain an extra 8 points for outstanding performance in terms of providing affordable housing. Land Use An additional distinction of the PDOD is that applicants would have flexibility in the land uses they include in their project. There are currently 25 distinct zone districts, each with a list of permitted uses. PDOD projects would be able to include any use that is allowed within the underlying zone district where it is located, but would also be able to include uses that are permitted in other zone districts throughout the city. This is not intended to allow for any use anywhere; uses not expressly permitted by the underlying zone district must meet additional criteria to be added by PDOD projects to ensure it is designed and/or mitigated appropriately. Review Process A final variation that distinguishes the PDOD relates to the review process. PDOD projects would have a similar, yet separate process with different names for each of the plan types. The PDOD plan types would be called a Detailed Development Plan and Complete Development Plan. The table below shows how the nomenclature compares: ATTACHMENT 1 Planned Development Overlay District – Overview February 2013 4 Table 1: Comparison of Plan Type Nomenclature PDOD All Other Districts Detailed Development Plan Project Development Plan Complete Development Plan Final Plan There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps include: 1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review 2. Neighborhood Meeting 3. Application Submittal 4. Type 1 Review (decision-maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision-maker is P&Z) PDOD projects would not be subject to any additional review steps other than what is already required; however, these projects would have the option to participate in a pre-application informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z). The optional session with P&Z would provide the applicant the opportunity to present basic concepts of the project and receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after the existing pre-application hearing that applicants can have with City Council for certain development applications. The intent is to provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about the project in hopes of identifying any major concerns that can be addressed before the formal submittal. Another difference is that all PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning that P&Z would decide whether or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews are typically reserved for more complex development projects, and staff anticipates that infill development and redevelopment projects using PDOD would benefit from this level of review. ATTACHMENT 2 1 Planned Development Overlay District Pilot – Evaluation Questions For all eligible PDOD applicants within the six-month pilot: 1. How did you first hear about PDOD? 2. Based in Fort Collins? 3. How long have you been in business? 4. Are you or your client interested in trying PDOD? If not, please explain. 5. If PDOD isn’t appropriate for this project, could you see you pursuing it for a different project? 6. What seems most appealing about PDOD? 7. What seems most concerning? For submitted PDOD pilot projects: 1. What is the gross acreage of the site? 2. What is the total square footage of building space proposed? 3. What is the floor area ratio (FAR)? 4. What uses are being considered? 5. How tall is the building(s) being proposed (measured in feet)? 6. What are the characteristics of the site that make it challenging to develop? 7. Describe the surrounding development/context of the site. 8. What modifications of standards would be required for this project if the standard review process was used? 9. Which matrix items are sought and how many points are anticipated? 10. How long did the development review process take from Detailed Development Plan (DDP) submittal to public hearing? a. If there were unanticipated delays, describe the causes. 11. Did the project take advantage of the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z? Why or why not? 12. Did the project add land uses not otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning? 13. Was it challenging to apply Article 3 to the project, e.g. were there significant discrepancies in how the developer and staff interpreted compliance with a general standard? For affected property owners: 1. Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback on the project at the neighborhood meeting? 2. Do you feel that your feedback was taken into consideration by staff or the developer and incorporated into the project? 3. Do you think the project will be a benefit or detriment to the neighborhood? Please explain. 4. If applicable, did you attend the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z and voice your feedback on the project? 5. What, if anything, would you like to change about the project? ATTACHMENT 2 2 For staff: 1. What worked well? 2. What were the most challenging aspects of reviewing a PDOD project? 3. Did you feel you had greater leverage/flexibility to negotiate with the applicant? 4. What, if anything, would you change about the PDOD review process? 5. Was it challenging to agree on the interpretation of matrix points and general standard compliance? 6. Was reviewing a PDOD project easier or harder than standard development review? Please explain. For PDOD applicants: 1. Were you satisfied with the PDOD? Please explain why or why not. 2. What were the biggest challenges? 3. What worked well? 4. Did PDOD save time and/or money? 5. Would you use PDOD again or recommend it to another developer? Why or why not? 6. What would you change/improve about the process? For the Planning and Zoning Board: 1. If the applicant participated in the pre-submittal meeting with P&Z, did you find that opportunity helpful to give feedback to the applicant? 2. What were the most challenging aspects of reviewing a PDOD project? 3. What worked well? 4. Was it challenging to implement PDOD development standards (Article 3 and the Performance Matrix)? 5. Did you receive more, less, or the same amount of input from adjacent property owners? 6. Would you change anything to help in your decision-making process? INTERSTATE 25 S SHIELDS ST E VINE DR S TAFT HILL RD S COLLEGE AVE S TIMBERLINE RD E PROSPECT RD E DRAKE RD E HORSETOOTH RD N SHIELDS ST N TAFT HILL RD W DRAKE RD LAPORTE AVE ZIEGLER RD E HARMONY RD RIVERSIDE AVE W HARMONY RD W MULBERRY ST N COLLEGE AVE N LEMAY AVE W HORSETOOTH RD W VINE DR KECHTER RD MOUNTAIN VISTA DR S LEMAY AVE Planned Development Overlay District - Pilot Boundary Major Streets Planned Development Overlay District Pilot Boundary O 1 inch = 3,250 feet ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 4 Member Campana said the enrollment seems quite small compared to a typical charter school. He thinks because this is a commercial site and the roads have been designed to handle the traffic, it’s far better than having the school embedded in a neighborhood. Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Mountain Sage Community School, 2170 W. Drake Rd, SPAR, #SPA120004 based on findings of facts and conclusions on page 6 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0 _______ Project: Planned Development Overlay District Pilot with Related LUC Amendments Project Description: The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance to adopt the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot. The pilot would establish a six-month application period providing developers the option to use the PDOD. The 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, the pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering adopting it on a permanent basis. Concerns have been raised during recent public outreach, however, regarding the boundary area for the PDOD pilot. As a result, several boundary options are being presented to P&Z in order to provide a recommendation to City Council. A second Ordinance is also presented for a recommendation which would make several amendments to 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 create “General Standards” where they were missing, and make some revisions to existing “General Standards” for clarification purposes. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Megan Bolin said the prescriptive nature of the LUC hinders infill development and redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and shifts from greenfield to infill, unique and more frequent design challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility to achieve desirable, high-quality projects. She said the challenges were: policy which encourages infill/redevelopment, reality that infill/redevelopment is challenging, and the existing LUC. Bolin said the solution may be PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) which ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 5 is an optional zoning overlay. It provides design and land use flexibility and is performance based. PDOD will have several differences from the current process. Those differences are primarily in land use, the review process, and development standards and she provided a comparison of current practices to PDOD. Bolin said with PDOD, all of Land Use Code Article 3, General Standards would apply, although some are given flexibility by only having to comply with the “General Standard” of certain Sections. only some sections apply. Most sections apply in entirety including natural habitat, historic and streets/alleys. In addition to Article 3, the Performance Matrix quantifies sustainable principles and offers a points- based menu of items in seven categories that are aligned with City Plan. The applicant must achieve 45 points total in at least 4 categories. The matrix rewards public benefits and projects that go beyond Code minimums. The pilot allows test-cases which provide an opportunity for evaluation of the system. It provides time to make improvements and helps us determine how viable PDOD could be as a tool. Pilot details are: • 6-month application period to submit Detailed Development Plan (Project Development Plan equivalent) • 3-year term of vested rights • Council has opportunity to extend application period • Open-ended evaluation period • Must be within boundary Bolin reviewed the 7 boundary options: • Option 1 – Boundary – no change • Option 2 – No Laurel School Historic District Inclusion • Option 3 – Includes the entire Laurel School Historic District • Option 4 – No Historic Districts • Option 5 – No NCM and NCB Zoned Land • Option 6 – No CSU Land at Prospect/College • Option 7 – Remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River She outlined other board and commission feedback and asked the Planning and Zoning Board to make a recommendation to City Council on the following items related to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD): 1. Ordinance establishing the pilot. This would provide a six-month application period where developers within the PDOD boundary can submit PDOD projects; 2. Ordinance adopting several amendments and additions to the “General Standards” within several Sections of Article 3 of the Land Use Code; and 3. Preferred boundary option. Board Questions Chair Smith complimented staff. He thinks they’ve done a great job with the outreach and in getting so many different stakeholders to weigh in. Member Schmidt asked if we’re creating a section in Article 4 (Section 4.29) that will be the PDOD section, that it’s not technically true that PDOD is exempt completely from Article 4– is that correct? ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 6 Bolin said correct, because PDOD is an overlay district, placing it in Article 4 with the other Districts made the most sense, but that none of the other Sections of Article 4 would apply to PDOD. Member Schmidt said Bolin mentioned something about the evaluation period being open ended but will City Council do some sort of evaluation before they consider making PDOD permanent. Bolin said there is nothing formal in the ordinance as it reads now. Council has an option to extend the 6 month application period. We do anticipate that staff would bring it forward to City Council. Public Input Mark Anderson lives at 704 Mathews. He believes there are many significant problems with this proposal. He thinks it totally “guts” section 4 which means a person that lives in the PDOD district could have a 10 story apartment building pop up across the street. He said if you’re in the NCM zone and it doesn’t allow for a bar; you could take a section of zoning anywhere else and you can apply that. His second concern is the matrix has some serious logic problems. He said you’re also allowed as a developer to write in your own test questions. He thinks the scoring is really subjective. Sometimes you get 2 points, sometimes you get 4. He thinks this opens the city up to litigation problems Anderson said his last concern has to do with relying on neighborhood meetings. He’s found that neighborhood meetings don’t work. Twenty five people might show up for a meeting and they may feel like they’ve been heard. But really, they are just talking to a city staff person. He said the problem is people think they’ve been heard so they don’t show up for the planning and zoning meeting. He thinks there’s a systematic problem with neighborhood meetings. Bill Jenkins lives at 710 Mathews Street. He’s read some of the materials and from the presentation he thinks there may be an extra layer added to the process. He said flexibility is not really defined here—which standards (height, etc). He said it would be interesting if you could come up with examples of a current project that had gone through PDOD. It’s hard for him to tell what the real differences are. He thinks there should be some extra time assigned to public input. He said this looks like a possible way to get around some rules. He likes the option where the Laurel Historic District is left out. Lisa Demberg lives at 425 E. Laurel Street. She said it wouldn’t make sense to take the “jewel of Fort Collins” – old town and other historic districts and put to them into a pilot program in which nobody quite knows how it’s going to work. There are issues about preserving the character of those neighborhoods that take a greater understanding. She thinks the other problem to keeping them in the pilot program is the fact that the Eastside/Westside groups are just starting to be reconvened. To people participating, it becomes a worthless process if this happens before that has even gotten underway. It seems like a lot of decisions will be getting made. She thinks it’s disingenuous to continue with that input because it really won’t matter anymore. She would encourage the board if they recommend the pilot that they also keep the historic districts out of it. Steve Mack lives at 420 E. Laurel Street. He said he has properties on both the east and west sides of College. His concern is boundaries. His concerns relate to that we have two concomitant processes in the system at the same time. We’re looking at reinitiating Eastside/Westside Study— looking at the desirable aspects to the two neighborhoods. At the LPC, he recommended they put forward a proposal to exclude historic districts from PDOD. His concern is with historic district is why would you have two boundaries—one the Laurel School Historic District and another for PDOD which overlaps. It allows for the potential to “gut” some of the momentum that the historic ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 7 district is now gaining. If you do go ahead and recommend PDOD with the historic districts included, it could cause irreparable harm on what is really a pilot project. Charles Clarke lives at 327 E. Magnolia. He said it seems silly to say we are not weakening the standards, they aren’t required to use PDOD, and minimums are becoming maximums. He thinks they are weakening the standards—they are being allowed to pick and choose what they want. He’d like to know why a developer would use the new “stuff”. Doree DuFresan lives at 325 E. Olive Street. One of her concerns is that she hadn’t heard of this before and she lives in an area that would be impacted. One of the aspects of this project appeared to be public input to the modification of standards. It seems public input has not been adequately been asked for this process. She’d like to ask the board to consider further public input. Nick Haws lives at 2221 Sandbur Drive. He’d like to discuss the boundaries. He thinks the original boundary was very thoughtful. It took into consideration multiple boundaries that had evolved over time with the TOD (Transit Oriented District) and targeted infill and redevelopment areas from City Plan and Fort Collins updates. Perhaps some subtleties such as the floodways, CSU properties, and splitting a historic district were inadvertently missed. A couple of options that really disturb him are the NCB and NCM area and particularly the Poudre River. With the underlying Article 3 standards remaining, particularly the natural features area, he doesn’t see how PDOD would offer any addition jeopardy or compromise to the Poudre River. He thinks an additional 1000 foot buffer is completely unwarranted when we’re already protected with the underlying Article 3 standards. He said the downtown river corridor is already particularly a targeted infill redevelopment area. PDOD further incentivizes and raises the bar to insure what might redevelop there is to the highest standard. He thinks there are some good points about the historic districts but as he’s understanding it, all the Article 3 historic preservation standards would still remain in place. Craig Russell lives at 4524 Skyline Drive. He said this has been an ongoing problem in Fort Collins—how to accommodate and encourage redevelopment and infill. In 2005 he worked on a project with the city planning office called Refill Fort Collins. The objective of that was to identify barriers to redevelopment and infill. This notion is getting toward something he thinks can work for the city overall. He used an example of a project at the corner of Drake and Lemay that was developed using the Land Use Guidance System (LDGS). Under that system there was a lot more creativity and flexibility. It represents how PDOD could really result in some fantastic projects. End of Public Input Bolin said she’d like to correct an incorrect perception of the point system on the matrix. It has always been proposed that a project has to receive a total of 45 points in at least 4 of the 7 categories. Bolin said in the matrix there is a place where you can get points if you have an eligible historic structure that you are preserving or establishing as a designated landmark. It also rewards projects that have historic buildings that go through the Landmark Preservation Commission design review process. Bolin said in terms of public involvement, an applicant can also receive points if they hold extra neighborhood meetings or hold a workshop. If that route is taken, they would also provide an assessment of what the outcomes of those meetings had been. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 8 Chair Smith noted one citizen’s reference to sufficient public outreach. He asked about what type of neighborhood outreach took place for this process. Bolin said they held a public open house on May 7 advertised through standard communication processes: the city’s web site, a press release, and social media (Facebook/Twitter). It was intended to be community wide (beyond the PDOD boundary). Member Carpenter asked if in the amount of time this has been going on, it seems like there has been more than one public meeting. Bolin said not a full open house—there was only the one in May. Carpenter asked if the other meetings were for stakeholders. Bolin said yes. In the beginning there were meetings with focus groups. Member Schmidt asked if there had been any mailings to people who live within the boundary. Bolin said no there have not been any mail notifications. Member Stockover said that is basically how government works. We don’t take the entire population of Fort Collins to the capitol building to make our laws. We rely on citizen participation and our elected officials. Many have been working on this including the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council, developers, brokers, South Fort Collins Business Association, Landmark Preservation, Air Quality Advisory Board – and that’s not even half the list. He said he thinks city staff has reached out. Government doesn’t work if you have 140,000 people voting on every decision. Chair Smith said notice under a policy discussion is very different from when a project is proposed. He asked what the notice requirement is once there is a sign in the yard that something’s going to happen. Bolin said the notification notice is an 800 foot perimeter around the project. Bolin said we will be hiring a Development Review Outreach Coordinator –essentially a liaison who’ll provide that connection between neighbors and affected property owners and the development process. She said we’ve also established a development review outreach meeting in which staff works with affected property owners without the applicant present. It’s their opportunity to talk about the process at different stages of development review. We also have a citizen’s guide to development review. Member Schmidt said relative to Mr. Anderson’s comments about the performance matrix 45 points and then you win; we have tried very hard to show that once you establish the 45 points you’d be allowed to start using the PDOD system. You’d then have to meet all the standards in Article 3. It gives you an idea of where you would fit in using that system. She just wants to dispel the myth that getting 45 points does not require any further effort by the applicant to develop a good project Member Campana said he’d like to follow up on that. It just sets the stage for the discussion that staff and the board would have in reviewing it. He said this is a big change for people who haven’t been involved in the process for as long as the board has. He said three retreats back they identified infill and redevelopment as a potential challenge moving forward. He said they’ve been involved in these discussions for several years and have had at least 6 presentations as the policy has evolved. He said the board does not write the code, staff does-- they advise staff and make recommendations to City Council. The board then applies it. He said we are pretty well vested in this process. Campana said the Land Use Code is pretty prescriptive. It’s good in that you know what to expect but you could almost end up with the very same development on each corner. Creativity may be handcuffed at some level. He thinks using the LUC as the basis and then adding PDOD makes a lot of sense. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 9 Director Kadrich said a citizen testified earlier that if the code has been weakened, why would a developer want to use it? She said the answer to that is the tradeoff with the matrix. There are sections of the code, if this is adopted and we move forward, that someone with a PDOD project would not have to comply. But the matrix then requires additional standards to be met in the hopes that the community receives a benefit if portions of the code are not followed. She believes that is what we’re trying to say when we state it does not weaken the code. She said it’s just a different benefit the community receives for a developer not having to follow all elements of Article 4. Board Discussion Member Schmidt said she thinks it is possible to do really great things under the current code evidence the recent Bucking Horse development but it did require some modifications and some additions of a permitted use which if PDOD would have been in place, we may have gotten the same thing without having to go through those extra steps. She said an applicant would be allowed more creativity and could think outside the box. We’d like to know this is taking us to the next level so when we’re doing infill; we’re really getting something that meets the needs of the citizens and the community. Schmidt said relative to the comment that developers can write their own test questions. She said we don’t know every new thing that is coming up. We want to leave it open for people to come to the table and say “x” is a good idea and get some credit for it. She’s glad we’re doing a pilot project so hopefully citizens will continue to be active and use that time to make comments as to the process. Member Carpenter said as relates to public input under PDOD. She was around when we had LDGS and she would have to say there was really a lot more public input given under LDGS than under City Plan. One of the reasons we went to more prescriptive was that it also gave developers a sense of what they could expect/do. She’s hopeful that what will happen with PDOD is that we get to have more public input. She knows the board and staff will be looking very carefully into getting the outcome we want. She said it is a pilot project so we’ll have the opportunity to make adjustments along the way. For that reason she does feel a little uncomfortable about having the historic district included. She thinks when we start applying to our historic districts we should have it down pat and know what we’re doing. For that reason she’d feel more comfortable if we pull the historic districts out. Member Kirkpatrick said she’s the newest member and was not here at PDOD’s inception. She can see from a public standpoint how the process can look enormously complicated and a little subjective. She thinks it’s really important that we are being a little more nuanced in the things that we’re wanting above and beyond for creativity and flexibility. She also thinks that LUC has not quite caught up to what has been outlined in our policies. This allows us a tool to bridge what we as a community have said we want. She agrees with Member Carpenter that Laurel School District should be excluded from the boundary. Member Schmidt said she attend the May 7th Open House and some of the neighbors there were very concerned about PDOD in their neighborhoods. She said since this is a pilot, she’s with the Landmark Preservation Commission. She thinks we should leave the boundary in the area where we’d like to see a lot of creativity – maybe the Midtown Corridor and some of North College. She’d vote for keeping a pretty firm boundary until we see exactly how this is going to work. She would support the requests from all the groups that asked for exclusions from the PDOD boundary. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 10 Chair Smith said in reviewing Bolin’s June 14th memo there is a statement, “while the PDOD would adhere to the entire Section of Article 3 that governs Natural Habitats and Features (3.4.1), there is concern that the flexibility afforded to other standards would put the river at risk. Of particular concern is the waiving of floor area ratios and density standards contained in Article 4 of the Land Use Code.” He asked what other types of risks would we be talking about. Bolin said the primary concerns were density and height. Not having the metrics standards that would be established by the Article 4 districts was the concern. There is also concern about intense development that could be perceived as inappropriate. Chair Smith said so in and of itself density that is restricted now would be seen as being bad for the river—is that the basis of the risk? Bolin said the concern is if the standards would be applied differently with PDOD. Director Kadrich said what we’re trying to say is that is what the testimony was; we are not stating that is a fact. Smith said he’s just trying to get to what staff heard. He asked if there were any representatives of Save the Poudre present. There were none. Chair Smith said he doesn’t want to put anyone (stakeholder or staff) on the hot seat. He said we have a proud history of being data driven. Smith said he doesn’t want to say it’s “scary” unless we can get to some concrete examples of what might happen. Then go a little further to evaluate if it’s bad in the context of other things that might be coming along that are good in a project that no longer has minimums and maximums. Staff member Lindsay Ex said she was at the meeting when staff met with the Board of Save the Poudre. She said their concerns related to the river and were like the concerns the Landmark Preservation Commission had relative to historic preservation. She said there is an uncertainty with the pilot surrounding the density, the land uses, and the intensity. They supported being conservative on how it’s applied. Member Schmidt said if someone wanted to do a project in that corridor they could still use the current code and ask for modifications or addition of permitted use. They could go through the process we have now. She said she doesn’t think we’re cutting off potential development in that corridor. Smith said the Poudre River through town is not a natural state where no development occurs at all and then all of a sudden we’re going to have “hog rendering facilities on the banks”. He just wants to get this to a reality check. He said it doesn’t seem to be a scary as it might be for some folks. Member Campana asked how we would evaluate a height modification any differently than we’d evaluate height that would come in on a PDOD project. We’d have the same discussion as a Board—we’d still have shadow analysis and we’d still look at compatibility. He just doesn’t see the watering down factor by not having all that criteria in Article 4. We’d still be evaluating it the same way. It just gives us a broader scope to evaluate. Bolin said you’d have the ability to evaluate the project based on context with Article 3. She said the main evaluation tool then is the performance matrix—there are places where you could increase habitat buffer or planting more native trees, etc. Member Campana said the risk to a developer is that the board could deny a project using PDOD without having criteria to deny but with the standard LUC it’s basically check the box. He thinks it gives the board a lot more flexibility. He said he personally does not any issue with the originally proposed overlay district. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 11 Member Carpenter asked to view the consolidated options map that Bolin mentioned. She wants to be sure we don’t hamper being able to evaluate the pilot if we make the area too small. Bolin reviewed the map. Member Stockover asked if there was copy of the map in the materials distributed to the Board. Bolin said no. Stockover indicated it appears that it’s showing the consolidated options 4 – 7 (no historic districts, no NCM and NCB zoned land, no CSU land at Prospect/College, and remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River). Chair Smith said if there’s a concern the historic preservation sections in the Municipal and Land Use Code are not adequate on their own, is this a PDOD issue or should we be revising our historic preservation standards. Director Kadrich said her understanding comes from the many hours of conversation with the LPC. They believe their standards are very strong particularly in the historic districts. What they feel would happen if part or all of the district is left in is they would become the group that has to say no (as appropriate) to folks looking to make application for a PDOD project. They were thinking, particularly for the pilot project, they wouldn’t feel comfortable being in that position to get this process off to a good start. Chair Smith asked what is the makeup of commercial versus residential in the downtown historic district. Bolin indicated on a map that the downtown and river areas were primarily commercial. Smith said with residences over some businesses in the downtown he thinks it’s purely mixed use and commercial. Staff agreed. Smith said it goes beyond Jefferson to areas slated for redevelopment. Bolin said correct. Smith asked would that be a prime place for PDOD to be tested because of the character of that district. Bolin said it could be beneficial. Member Campana asked when studies were done on the targeted infill redevelopment areas; how many of those areas were in the Laurel School Historic District. Bolin said the targeted infill and redevelopment areas weren’t drawn precisely so they don’t follow zoning or parcel lines. It does follow the commercial corridor all the way down. She doesn’t know specifically how far it goes into the Laurel School Historic District but it does extend east on Mulberry. Member Campana said he’d be okay with removing Laurel School Historic District but he thinks we should leave everything else. Member Stockover said he thinks the Boards should consider removing the historic districts. He said he’s on the fence about the sliver on College Avenue on the west side of the historic district. He’d be okay with staying away from that for the pilot. With regard to the Poudre River, more than half of that area is public owned open space with the exception of the golf course. He said there are a lot of properties along East Mulberry which could benefit from this pilot. When he looks at that whole area he can’t think of a project that would really be that controversial. He thinks there are a lot of opportunities there. He has no problem with excluding the CSU land because it is predominately floodplain. He said with regard to NCB and NCM it indicates to him that if they started taking everybody out that we have the wrong project. He thinks we have enough protection that this really should work city wide. He doesn’t think those zones (NCB and NCM) have made a case like the historic districts and he thinks they should not be excluded. AMENDED: Member Schmidt made a motion to recommend to City Council the approve the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot and related Land Use Code amendments with a vote on boundary options to be considered separately and a recommendation that the ordinance would be in effect as long as it is needed for PDOD projects submitted in the six month period to complete the review/approval process. Member Campana seconded the motion ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 12 Member Schmidt said she doesn’t understand the motion because staff is requesting recommendations related to establishing the pilot, adopting several amendments and additions to the LUC, and supporting the preferred boundary option. She asked if it was Member Stockover’s intent to put everything into one pot. Stockover said his motion is to recommend approval of the ordinance related to the pilot, the LUC amendments, and the preferred boundary option. He’s thinking that combination of Options 4 and 6. Member Schmidt suggested the Board separate the boundary options because she can’t support the motion. She thinks we’d have a different vote on the boundaries. Member Stockover said he’d accept a friendly amendment to vote on boundary options separately. Member Campana seconded the amendment. Member Stockover said he thinks the board should come to a consensus on which boundary options we’d like to recommend. Member Carpenter asked if they could separate the elements and vote separately on the boundary options. Member Stockover said he’d like to put the first two elements “to bed” and then vote separately on the options. Member Schmidt asked Bolin if it says anywhere in the ordinance about how once the pilot is adopted, City Council will progress to reviewing. She’s not had a chance to review the document distributed with the presentation and she just wants to know if there’s verbiage that addresses that. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said it’s in Section 18 near the last page. “This ordinance should terminate and be of no further force and effect at close of business on January 18, 2013 unless extended by ordinance of the City Council.” Eckman had a question with regard to the motion. He wondered if the motion is to recommend both ordinances. Board members said yes. Member Stockover said an applicant can apply up to that date. Bolin said yes. Eckman said it’s become a bit of dilemma. Eckman said the state statute regarding vesting rights provides you get the law in effect at the time you filed your application for a site specific development plan. In Fort Collins, we have defined it as the final plan. He said once you get a PDP (Project Development Plan) approved under the current code, you must move forward with your final plan to be fully vested. Eckman said technically we could change our LUC prior to the approval of a PDP and the developer would have to comply with the new changes—even though they had a plan in process. He’s not sure that’s the way we’ve always handled it in the past. He said a legal argument could be made as to why you should get the law in effect at the time the PDP was approved. He said we may need to do a little changing of our LUC in general if that’s not the policy we’d like. He thinks that something we should be discussing with staff. Member Schmidt said she’s now totally confused. She thought there was an obligation to follow through when you have the approval. If someone in these times for financial reasons could not follow through; they would have been approved under the PDOD but nothing ever happens and the pilot program goes away. Eckman said if they have an approved DDP (Detailed Development Plan) that is good for 3 years. They can move to final plan (Complete Plan in PDOD) within that 3 year period. If the final plan is approved that is then vested for another 3 years under state law. Member Campana said the challenge is you’re in the middle of an application and the code changes; the code that was being applied at the time of application stays in effect. Eckman said he’s not sure that’s what the code says and we’ve not always been consistent on that. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 13 Member Carpenter said if we only have 6 months in this pilot, is there going to be enough time for people to get a plan in and get it to approval in that amount of time. Are we so constricted here that the pilot will not really tell us much? Member Stockover said he believes City Council has the right to extend if an insufficient number of projects are submitted in that six month application period. Bolin said it was never their intention that a project would have to be approved within six months. The six months is the application period. Eckman said you could recommend a longer application period or change the code so that it’s more clear that you can use the law in effect at the time you file an application. Member Schmidt said we basically want PDOD to stay in effect through the period of review; we just want the submittals to terminate. Deputy Kadrich said rather than the six months ends the ordinance, the six months should end the application period. The ordinance would be in effect as long as needed to complete the pilot projects. Eckman said they would need to re-craft some of the words in the ordinance to say that before we go to City Council. Member Campana said that would be in line with what we’ve been thinking. Member Stockover said he’d accept a friendly amendment to recommend the ordinance would be in effect as long as is needed for PDOD projects submitted in the six month period to complete the review/approval process. Member Campana seconded the amendment. The amended motion was approved 7:0. Options Option 1 – Boundary – no change Option 2 – No Laurel School Historic District Inclusion Option 3 – Includes the entire Laurel School Historic District Option 4 – No Historic Districts Option 5 – No NCM and NCB Zoned Land Option 6 – No CSU Land at Prospect/College Option 7 – Remove 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River Chair Smith summarized what he perceived was consensus on how the board wanted to proceed. Member Stockover said the board is in agreement that Option 1 (no change) is out. Chair Smith thinks all agreed Option 3 (Laurel School Historic District) and Option 6 (CSU land at Prospect/College) would be excluded from the overlay district. He thinks the options to discuss and debate are options 2, 4, 5, and 7. Member Schmidt said if the board recommends Option 4 (no historic districts) that would cover Option 2. Chair Smith said he’d like to get a read on whether that’s what the board wants to recommend. Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that Option 1 and Option 3 are not desirable. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Member Stockover said it might be a good idea to get the read on how the board feels about Options 2 (no Laurel School Historic District) and 4 (no historic district). Member Carpenter said she can go with either option. She does not see the reason for the Downtown Historic District because it was developed under LGDS (Land use Guidance ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 14 Development System). It had much more flexibility than PDOD. It’s commercial but she can go either direction. Member Kirkpatrick said she’d like to see the old town historic district kept in the PDOD boundary because of the site east of Riverside would potentially have some good applications. Smith agreed for the same reasons. Member Stockover made a motion that Option 4 not be recommended to City Council. Member Campana seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that Option 6 be included in the final map -- that would disallow CSU land at Prospect and College. Chair Smith seconded the motion. Member Schmidt wanted to make sure there’s an understanding that it doesn’t matter who owns the land--CSU or the foundation. Bolin said there’s a mixture of both the state and the research foundation owning land there. Motion was approved 6:1 with Member Hatfield dissenting. Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council that they consider Option 2 as one portion of the final map. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7:0. Member Stockover said relative to removing 1000 feet on either side of the Poudre River; he believes all the pristine areas are already protected by open space and city owned lands. Most of what is not city owned lands is already a concrete irrigation ditch. It’s not really pristine river. He thinks if we eliminate these areas we take too much of what would be a great representation of this project off the Mulberry Street Corridor and Jefferson Street. Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council Option 7 not be considered. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Schmidt said she’s against the motion because of the years she’s been on the board, she’s been burnt by this kind of thing. She used an example of the small scale event center and UE. She doesn’t feel comfortable going with it on a pilot. Once we have things worked out, then certainly because we have some protections in place; we’d have a better chance of enforcing what we want to enforce. Member Stockover understands Member Schmidt’s concerns but he thinks the protections are there. Member Kirkpatrick said with the Article 3 standards and our Environmental Planner on staff; she thinks it would be difficult to do something that would have a negative impact. She thinks if we don’t include it, it would be difficult to evaluate the pilot. She thinks it will help to do a better job of infill in that area--being sensitive to the river and ecological needs. Kirkpatrick said she would support keeping it in. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes June 21, 2012 Page 15 Member Carpenter said while it would make a very long meeting, a project would be Type II and would come before the board. Anything that would have a negative impact on the river would be scrutinized. Member Smith said he agrees. He thinks we have the protections in Article 3. He thinks this process will promote innovation and in having better projects than might normally occur. The fact is development has been occurring along the river corridor. It has a lot of great protections as it is. There is prime opportunity for signature projects that do nothing but enhance the river corridor and protect the resource that it is. Member Schmidt said that if someone wanted to do a signature project we could do it under the current code because she thinks the board would support it. Motion was approved 5:2 with Members Hatfield and Schmidt dissenting. Member Stockover thinks we have adequate protections for NCM and NCB. Member Schmidt said she doesn’t see what protections NCM and NCB zones have except for compatibility. They are not like a historic district or the river which have some basic protections in Article 3. From her perspective, the public outreach was somewhat limited. That was the main concern expressed by citizens who attended the open house. She thinks she needs to support those concerns. In a pilot they would rather not see the neighborhoods included. Chair Smith said simply because the Eastside/Westside neighborhood discussions are coming back up; he’s okay with excluding these two zone districts. Member Carpenter agreed. Member Kirkpatrick said she thinks its also interesting if we take out the Laurel School Historic District, that takes out almost all of the NCM and NCB residential sections except for a tiny pocket north of CSU on the outskirts of the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) where you are already having development pressure regardless of whether we do PDOD or not. Member Schmidt agrees with the pressure – concern about multi family development. She thinks we’re telling people on the west side it’s okay to leave them in even though the east side had been excluded. Member Stockover made a motion to recommend to City Council Option 5 (no NCM or NCB). Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Campana said he doesn’t think it needs to be removed nor does he think it would be detrimental to the pilot if it was. It’s a pretty small area. Motion was approved 7:0 ATTACHMENT 4 ATTACHMENT 9 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Feedback from Public Meeting on May 7, 2012 Questionnaire Reponses 1. Do you support the City’s pursuit of a flexible zoning tool for infill/redevelopment?  Yes – infill development has unique constraints where a one size code does not fit all circumstances. Great idea!  Yes  Yes – allowing for flexibility not only encourages healthy development, but also acts as a great tool for economic development.  Maybe – it sounds like P&Z feels they can’t get a good project downtown because of the inflexibility of the LUC. The LUC does well for 95% and PDOD would help with the last 5% ‐ is this to force a square project through a round hole? Is that really a good thing?  Yes, with conditions – refine the overlay zone and no opt‐in feature.  Maybe – if it doesn’t infringe on the adjoining property use!  Maybe – I support infill and redevelopment in general, but zoning changes adjacent to residential neighborhoods should have a higher level of scrutiny. People buy their homes with the expectation that residential zones will continue into the future. When and if PDOD changes the zoning adjacent to especially single family residential, it creates big problems and I wouldn’t support PDOD.  Maybe – like to hear more about where problems exist with specific examples.  Maybe – this process increases uncertainty for residents. It makes it possible to build developments that were not previously allowed. For the developer, this uncertainty presents increased opportunity. For neighbors, this uncertainty introduces terror; single, lifetime i?? in houses are threatened. The charette style invariably diffuses citizen input further.  No – we need to focus on problems that exist. PDOD is a response to hypothetical problems.  Yes – the only reasonable way to accommodate and manage a growing city. We’ll enliven and renew downtown. 2. Do you think that testing PDOD through a pilot program is appropriate?  Yes – what better way to work out the bugs than try it out.  Maybe  Yes – in hope that there is more than 1 project submitted to analyze, the six‐ month period seems appropriate.  Yes – seeing the intent in action will help see why this is needed, and make sure no group or community is trampled.  Yes  Yes – you won’t know if it will work unless you test it.  Maybe – limit it to redevelopment that is the same sue as the current zoning. Have flexibility but don’t change the zoning. ATTACHMENT 9 2  Yes  Maybe – the pilot program will be construed as a land rush.  Yes 3. Any additional comments about PDOD?  It seems likely that this tool will promote better infill projects with less brain damage for the developer.  Expand the flexibility even more. I support the effort to provide more flexible City review processes.  One additional component to think of is an added incentive cost incentive for the developers. The flexibility component is an incentive, but how are you attracting development? How much influence will the public input component have on the outcome/future progress of development?  The community (neighborhood) is primary – it’s imperative the community is brought in close to the beginning. The points have to show better thresholds – too subjective. Are we encouraging development of historical areas incorrectly? That this end up being an abuse of power?  You should include parking standards in flexible zoning.  For roughly 20 years the city had the land development guidance system that was an alternative to traditional zoning. It basically stated that any land use could be anywhere as long as it could be “mitigated”. It was a points for performance similar to what’s proposed by PDOD. The problem was that the residential neighborhoods had to consistently battle proposed non‐residential uses and both neighborhoods and developers found the system was not predictable, which is why the City Council in the 1990’s changed to City Plan and a more prescriptive approach to bring more predictability. Residential land owners should not have to be continuously vigilant to have to protect their property values from “unplanned/unknown” uses that aren’t in the zoning and land use code.  Very complicated if you are not involved in process on day‐to‐day basis. Is getting points in four categories a good thing? Should require points in all if they are important.  There is a clear impression that this process is being implemented to serve development and developers and reign in neighborhood efforts. This may not be true, but the “loosening” of codes will make more of the impression that citizens are going to be cut out.  You don’t follow the LUC and City Code as written now –why worry about changing it?  I think it exemplifies the City’s desire to get out in front of a density issue that without proper planning could cause a beautiful downtown area to continue to deteriorate.  What’s the notice distance for neighborhood meetings?  Will neighborhoods be given notice of the pre‐application meeting with P&Z?  Will this apply to scrape offs and existing single family historic homes? ATTACHMENT 9 3 General Comments  You don’t follow the LUC as written, why bother changing it?  Distinction between high and low quality design. ‐ Concerned we don’t know what high quality is. ‐ Problem is we don’t have a good way to incentivize quality ‐ We don’t observe our existing LUC  Section 4…pick and choose? ‐ Staff comment: Article 4 does not apply to PDOD projects.  Centennial High School – hesitant to rely on neighborhood meetings.  Need to improve neighborhood engagement  Better feedback early on – where are the controls?  More neighborhood notice  Instead of opening up for six months, open up for 3‐4 projects.  6‐month window is seen as a potential land rush.  Elected officials – excused from…? ‐ Staff should be representing the needs of the citizens ‐ Citizens put in a position of defense ‐ Really control this process to the “gold standard”  What if nobody applied?  Can you limit the # of projects that use the pilot?  Why aren’t we working on providing student housing?  This process could be exactly what we need ‐ Having 4‐5 modifications just seems like it’s too far off  Finds that the City Plan and LUC sometimes conflict  Wants more assurances we’ll get great projects.  Is the LUC not fast enough? Projects not good enough? What is the problem? ‐ Staff comment: we are not evading, all projects still meet general standards, eliminates need for modifications  So, I could propose a mall outside of a zone where it’s currently allowed?  Does the map cover the residential districts? ‐ Staff comment: yes.  What’s the flexibility? ‐ Staff comment: you don’t have to adhere to Article 4 (Zone District); only adhere to the General Standards in Article 3, and some you only have to comply with the “General Standard” within certain Article 3 Sections.  Is the opt‐in still being considered? Questions why you would include residential districts. ‐ Staff comment: no; opt‐in is not available for the pilot.  Post‐denial re‐submittal delay; there will not be a delay during the pilot. Does not agree that the post‐denial delay be removed if a project is denied.  How much would it take to re‐submit if you were denied? ‐ Staff comment: could take up to two months ATTACHMENT 9 4  This is a powerful tool; in certain cases, zoning standards should apply, especially with residential zones.  Where is compatibility? ‐ Staff comment: Article 3 has standards for compatibility.  Who assigns the points? ‐ Staff: the applicant submits and scores themselves; staff reviews the points; P&Z is ultimate decision‐maker.  So the points are more subjective? The thresholds aren’t clear, e.g. what is a 2 vs. 4?  What criteria was used to draw the boundary and why wasn’t Riverside included?  LEED, evolution, LUC has evolved – it needs to be handled carefully.  Define an area, stick with the LUC and say there will be more modifications in these areas. Concerned with subjectivity of measurements.  Neighbors, community, demo/alt notifications– bring the neighbors in early before significant investment. Need to bring in neighbors from a different context. We need to get better at this.  PDOD & CSU Stadium?  Informing people – subarea plans, where is this in the matrix? We need to be clearer as staff about emphasizing subarea plans.  PDOD is a good idea; it’s for the other 5% cases because modifications aren’t always the right tool.  What about parking? LUC is already very flexible in parking; maximum standards for commercial projects. There is concern with overcrowding, especially in Downtown.  TOD Overlay south of Prospect – concerned with off‐site parking impacts. No parking minimums externalize parking issues to the neighborhoods.  CSURF – is their floodplain property in the PDOD boundary? Yes – why? ‐ We should not be making it more flexible for people to build in the floodplain. ‐ Asks that that parcel be removed from the PDOD boundary.  Bike parking – it’s too low (the current standard). ‐ Staff comment: the City is in the process of reviewing the bike parking standard.  TOD minimum parking – good idea, but?  Generally supportive of the pilot: ‐ Like the taskforce and open ended evaluation period ‐ Like that opt‐in is not an option for the pilot  What would happen if we got 20 applications?  Concerned with less predictability  Reminds him of a planned unit development (PUD); see LIV 5.2 – does this conflict?  Subarea plans – should we revisit these? Go to the neighborhoods and ask if it’s compatible with the subarea plan.  Concerned with preserving Old Town and neighborhoods. Doesn’t want the quality of life ruined.  Doesn’t address whether “growth is good”.  This is a responsible development plan for the City. If we’re going to grow, this is where it should be.  We could adjust the boundary based on feedback. ATTACHMENT 9 5 ‐ We could illustrate the zoning districts better.  One way to refine – look at the plans and see where it’s appropriate  The structure of the pilot program for PDOD seems reasonable. In particular the focus on only the defined overlay district is appropriate. It should be made clear that the six month pilot period is only to receive proposals. Processing these will likely take longer than that time line. In addition, making revisions to the matrix and evaluating the pilot means that City Council will not vote on adoption of PDOD for some time. Creating a stakeholder evaluation team for the pilot program is a very good idea as all perspectives can be heard with the likely result of a better final product.  Refine the boundaries of the overlay district. Presently the boundary is based on two layers‐TOD and activity centers. Add more layers to further define the boundary: 1) remove unbuildable sites due to floodplain issues and environmentally sensitive areas along the Poudre river; 2) remove any areas in conflict with City Plan policy LIV 5.2‐this could include the areas north of Mulberry and east of College.  City Plan encourages targeted infill and redevelopment and is meant to focus along the community spine. It specifically states that it is not intended to target established residential neighborhoods adjacent to the community spine.  Strengthen the matrix. City Plan emphasizes that redevelopment must follow the Community and Neighborhood Livability Chapter (Principle E4, Policy EH4.1 and LIV 5.1). Neighborhood compatibility regarding redevelopment is referenced in City Plan (Principle LIV 6 and Policy LIV 6.2. The matrix should more closely reflect the ideas in this chapter. The elements in the matrix and the categories should more strongly emphasize neighborhood preservation.  The use of Neighborhood (sub area) Plans as articulated in the Principles and Policies of City Plan should be more clearly articulated as an absolute criteria in application of PDOD. The idea is to highlight the existence of sub area plans and the requirement that they be referenced in developing and reviewing a PDOD proposal.  When final adoption of PDOD occurs, maintain the Post Denial Re‐Submittal Delay. This feature was recently added to the design review process after careful consideration. There is no basis for exempting PDOD from this requirement. June 5, 2012 To: City of Fort Collins From: Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper RE: PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) Hello City of Fort Collins, We previously sent you a letter about PDOD, which was on the Council agenda back on 1/31/2012. Since that time, we have had the opportunity to meet with your staff regarding PDOD. We’d like to provide the following input as PDOD works its way through your policy process. 1. Save the Poudre strongly opposes PDOD because it: a. Eliminates zoning and allows developers to propose any size or type of building on any property within the PDOD boundary, including along the Poudre River. (PDOD eliminates Article 4 – “Districts” of the Land Use Code, and instead relies on subjective interpretations of other City building standards.) b. Eliminates current density standards and allows developers to propose any amount of buildings containing any amount of people on any property within the PDOD boundary, including along the Poudre River. (PDOD eliminates Article 4 – “Districts” of the Land Use Code, and instead relies on subjective interpretations of other City building standards.) c. Places extremely onerous requirements on the public (including public interest groups such as Save The Poudre) to keep track of and evaluate every proposal through the development review process. Because prescriptive development requirements for zoning and density would be eliminated, PDOD would require extreme vigilance on the part of the public for every proposal to ensure community involvement. ATTACHMENT 10 d. Essentially negates the Poudre River buffer and natural function of floodplain, both of which could be proposed to be filled with buildings of any size and density. e. Relies on a “Performance Matrix” scoring system which requires 45 points on 4 of 7 performance categories for approval. This system flies in the face of the City’s formerly adopted “Triple Bottom Line” approach. In this new matrix, the “environment health” category could score a “0” and the development could still be approved. We cannot accept a new development system that potentially completely sacrifices our community’s environmental health at the expense of other goals. 2. Save the Poudre requests that a 1,000-foot buffer along the Poudre River corridor be omitted from PDOD in order to preserve the ecological health of the Poudre River. This buffer will help ensure that the river is not thrown into the shadows of tall buildings or overwhelmed by dense buildings and inhabitants. Inside this buffer, current zoning and development regulations should be maintained. Thank you for considering our input. Respectfully, Gary Wockner, PhD, Director Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper http://savethepoudre.org 970-218-8310 ATTACHMENT 10 ATTACHMENT 11 ATTACHMENT 11 ATTACHMENT 12 ATTACHMENT 12 1 Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot City Council February 12, 2013 ATTACHMENT 13 2 Action Items • Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot • Ordinance making amendments to Land Use Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards” 3 What’s our Challenge? • Policy – encourage infill/redevelopment • Reality – infill/redevelopment is constrained • LUC – prescriptive, difficult to respond to context 4 PREDICTABILITY REVIEW PROCESS What Citizens Want What Developers Want LAND USE CODE L.D.G.S. PDOD Discretion/Neighbor Input LEAST MOST Prescriptive zoning MOST Flexible zoning LEAST 5 How Does PDOD Work? Flexible application of LUC development standards Performance Matrix Foundation – existing Land Use Code Rewards public benefits and projects that exceed minimum Code requirements 6 Review Process Existing • Project Development Plan • Final Plan  Conceptual Review  Neighborhood Meeting  Submittal  Type 1 or Type 2 PDOD • Detailed Development Plan • Complete Development Plan  Conceptual Review  Neighborhood Meeting  Optional Pre-Submittal Meeting with P&Z  Submittal  Type 2 7 Land Use Existing • Use determined by zoning • If a use is not permitted: – Apply for Addition of a Permitted Use; or – Re-zone the property PDOD • Uses permitted by underlying zoning • Other uses considered as part of review process 8 Development Standards Existing • Article 3, General Standards • Article 4, Districts • Modifications required if a standard can not be met PDOD • Article 3, General Standards – Some Sections, only “General Standards” apply – Most Sections apply in entirety • Natural Habitat •Historic • Engineering • Performance Matrix – Minimum 45 points 9 PDOD What it is… • Alternative option for infill/redevelopment • Grounded by existing Code • Considers context and compatibility • Encourages creative solutions • Rewards public benefits What it isn’t… • Mandatory • Fast-track for approval • Solely points-based • Abandonment of fundamental standards • A proven concept 10 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 11 Pilot Boundary • Green = original proposal • Red = pilot boundary Prospect Harmony Vine Lemay Shields Horsetooth 12 Board/Commission Recommendations • Adopt PDOD Pilot – Planning & Zoning Board – Economic Advisory Commission – Transportation Board – Landmark Preservation Commission – Air Quality Advisory Board 13 Staff Recommendation • Adopt Ordinance establishing the PDOD pilot • Adopt Ordinance making amendments to Land Use Code (LUC) Article 3 “General Standards” 14 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 1, 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 1, 2013; and the Director may determine to close the acceptance of 8 applications prior to September 1, 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. (1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in the PDOD. 10 (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 forty-five (45) 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 forty-five (45) points must be obtained from at least four (4) of the seven (7) performance categories in order for the development project to be approved. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 2, or 4 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of significant value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of lesser value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 1 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 2 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Some of the criteria are worded such that they will either be implemented or not. Therefore, there are no degrees of implementation for these criteria. Depending upon the 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 45 points at minimum from at least 4 categories. * Definitions are available in the Appendix. Points Culture, Parks, Recreation 1.1 Incorporates art, sculpture or fountains viewable to the public. 0 1 2 1.2 Designates the site, structure(s) or object(s) determined to be individually eligible as a local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Register of Historic Places. 0 2 4 1.3 Provides a plaza, pedestrian mall, public square, park or other similar public open space within the project. 0 2 4 1.4 Rather than creating play spaces dominated by turf/sod grasses, incorporates natural play opportunities into the site.* 0 2 4 1.5 Site is located within ¼ mile of an existing (4 points) or planned (2 points) bike or other recreational trail and provides a pedestrian/bike connection to the trail. 0 2 4 1.6 If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation, participate in a complementary design review with the Landmark Preservation Commission, and incorporate feedback into the 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 1, 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 19th day of February, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th 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 materialsby requiring that adequate, convenient space is functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land use sites. . . . (C) General Standard. All development, to the extent reasonably feasible, shall provide adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible trash and recycling enclosures to accommodate the specific needs of the proposed use. Section 3. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.3 Water Quality The development shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and sedimentation, storm drainage and runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous substances. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Treatment measures may include, but shall not be limited to:  minimization of impervious surfaces  runoff spreaders  infiltration devices  extended detention  constructed wetlands  sand filters 3  water quality inlets General Standard. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Section 4. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.4 Noise and Vibration The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the city’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any vibration created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line. Noise generated by emergency vehicles and airplanes shall be exempted from the requirements of this provision. General Standard. Proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so that any vibration caused by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line. Section 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. (BC) Compliance with Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan General Standard. All development plans shall provide for or accommodate the parks and 4 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) Architectural Character General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context. . . . Section 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/Applicability. The following standards in this Section are intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian-oriented streets in residential development. (B) General Standard. Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human-scaled elements, architectural articulation, and in projects containing more than one (1) building, design variation. . . . Section 8. That Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly: 5 3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (A) Purpose. These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale. to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement. (B) General Standard. Mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall 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 . . . (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 6 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: 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. 7 . . . 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 19th day of February, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th 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