HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 01/31/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
January 31, 2012
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Planned Development Overlay District. (staff: Karen Cumbo, Megan Bolin; 1 hour
discussion)
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a newly developed land use tool
designed to enhance the Land Use Code process to encourage infill development and
redevelopment. The PDOD provides applicants with some flexibility in land use and
design while, at the same time, raises the bar in terms of incorporating community
sustainability goals within the project. The PDOD is optional and applicants will
continue to have the ability to use the standard Land Use Code (LUC) development
process.
3. Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau Update. (staff: Kelly DiMartino;
Convention and Visitors Bureau Executive Director: Jim Clark; 45 minute discussion)
The City of Fort Collins contracts with the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau
(FCCVB) to provide various convention and visitor services. In 2011, the FCCVB
generated approximately 20,000 hotel room nights in group, meeting and convention
sales, responded to more than 18,000 visitor inquiries, and generated over $2 million in
coverage in national and international publications.
January 31, 2012
The FCCVB will provide an overview of these and other efforts, share benchmark
comparisons related to the agency’s performance, and discuss plans and opportunities for
the future.
4. Traffic Safety in Fort Collins. (staff: Karen Cumbo, Joe Olson; 1 hour discussion)
The recently updated Transportation Master Plan places a strong emphasis on safety for
all travelers using all modes of travel in Fort Collins. Safety performance measures are
necessary in order to determine how well the City is meeting those safety goals. In 2011,
the City Traffic Operations Department produced a “Traffic Safety Summary” (found
online at: www.fcgov.com/traffic). The Summary is intended to be used as a
benchmarking tool to track progress on efforts to reduce the number of crashes as well as
crash severity. The information in the Traffic Safety Summary is also used by City staff
to guide efforts to improve safety.
Staff will present crash information and discuss how data is being used to improve traffic
safety. In addition, staff will present information regarding the City’s crosswalk policy
which was developed as part of the Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2011.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: January 31, 2012
STAFF: Karen Cumbo
Megan Bolin
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Planned Development Overlay District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a newly developed land use tool designed
to enhance the Land Use Code process to encourage infill development and redevelopment. The
PDOD provides applicants with some flexibility in land use and design while, at the same time,
raises the bar in terms of incorporating community sustainability goals within the project. The
PDOD is optional and applicants will continue to have the ability to use the standard Land Use Code
(LUC) development process.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the PDOD?
2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about implementing the PDOD?
3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the PDOD Ordinance on March 6?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Problem Statement
The current requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC) do not address the particular challenges of
infill development and/or redevelopment. As Fort Collins matures in its development pattern and
shifts from greenfield (previously undeveloped sites) to more infill development, unique and more
frequent design challenges are presented that require greater innovation and flexibility to achieve
desirable, high-quality projects. Whereas the LUC was developed primarily for greenfield
development applications, additional tools such as PDOD are being developed to help address the
shift to infill redevelopment needs.
Why do we need the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)?
The PDOD originated with the intent of providing an alternative, flexible development review
process for infill development and redevelopment. Infill and redevelopment projects can be more
complex due to unique design challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and an
established neighborhood context. While a prescriptive LUC works well for greenfield sites, often
January 31, 2012 Page 2
times infill/redevelopment projects simply can not meet quantitative standards because of existing
site conditions.
Direction to develop a flexible land use tool came from several sources, including:
• City Plan, Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment:
“Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and
resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and
modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable
approach to infill development and redevelopment.” (pg. 22)
• Planning and Zoning Board, 2011 Work Program: “Throughout the year, starting with the
Planning and Zoning Retreat in March, the Board has been discussing the need for an
alternative—a flexible zoning tool. The need for this tool has arisen primarily in
redevelopment areas but could have applications elsewhere. One reason for this need is the
existing Land Use Code is weighted toward greenfield development. The Board believes
a flexible zoning tool would be useful in ensuring that Fort Collins continues to develop in
a high quality fashion while addressing the various issues and interests related to infill
development that presents unique challenges.”
• Transportation Master Plan, Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas: “Where the
established street pattern and design may not conform to current street standards, allow for
alternative contextual design.” (pg. 26)
The existing development review process is not inherently flawed or in need of a major overhaul
in order to accommodate infill/redevelopment; it simply is not currently designed to efficiently
process complicated projects with multiple existing constraints. The City is experiencing more and
more applicants that have found an undeveloped or underdeveloped parcel of land surrounded by
other development. This is viewed as a positive trend since one of the major themes of City Plan
is encouraging denser development in targeted infill areas, such as along the College Avenue spine.
However, the existing Land Use Code is formulaic and prescriptive, and works well in some
greenfield sites, but it does not take into consideration existing conditions or desired urban form.
It is often difficult and at times next to impossible for infill development to meet all of the LUC
standards, which means they have to apply for a modification, or multiple modifications, of those
standards. As the City begins to process more and more of these types of projects, the number of
modifications for each continues to rise. While this is not a negative consequence, it is not
necessarily the most efficient process for more complicated infill projects. A better approach is to
look at a site and its context holistically and design the project to address the major planning issues.
Prescriptive standards work well for greenfield projects, but may not produce the highest-quality
development on an infill/redevelopment site because of the existing context. Thus, the goal of the
PDOD was not to invent something new; rather, staff worked within the existing development
review framework and made improvements in order to remove LUC barriers for
infill/redevelopment. This approach is not intended to replace the LUC; it is intended to provide a
process to efficiently and effectively address the unique aspects of infill development.
January 31, 2012 Page 3
What is the PDOD?
The PDOD would be a new overlay zone district that enhances the LUC by providing an alternative
to standard land development and permitting a creative, holistic approach that takes the context of
surrounding development into consideration. The PDOD blends the planning concept of Planned
Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning to produce the
intended outcome of flexibility, while at the same time assuring high-quality development.
The PDOD is optional for sites located within a defined boundary (see map, Attachment 2). This
tool would be most effective in infill/redevelopment areas that are challenged by existing site
constraints such as irregular lot shape or size, topography, and/or context. The boundary was drawn
to include areas previously identified as targeted infill and redevelopment areas in City Plan, as well
as the area defined as the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay because it too was intended
as an encouragement for targeted infill/development along the spine of the city. An applicant within
the boundary has the option to use the PDOD process and receive use, vesting, and design flexibility
(explained further below), but would always have the option to use the existing process if the
applicant chooses. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recognized the possibility of sites that
fall outside of the PDOD boundary that could greatly benefit from some flexibility; therefore, an
“opt-in” process was incorporated for sites outside the boundary, provided certain criteria are met.
A site outside the boundary must abut developed land and have physical constraints and/or be a
redevelopment project as defined in the Code. Determination of whether a site can “opt-in” is made
by the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director.
How is the PDOD Different?
There are several characteristics of the PDOD that set it apart from standard LUC development
review, explained in detail below.
Development Standards
One difference is the design flexibility afforded to PDOD development. Currently, projects must
comply with Article 4, Districts, which regulates permitted uses and Article 3, General Development
Standards. Article 3 covers all of the basic elements of development and provides standards for
considerations such as site planning and design, buildings, environment, natural areas, and
transportation, among others. Within each of the Article 3 sections is a “General Standard”,
typically followed by prescriptive standards that specify exactly how to meet the “General
Standard”.
The following is an example of a “General Standard” and prescriptive standard from Section 3.5.2
of the LUC, Residential Building Standards:
• General Standard: Development projects containing residential buildings shall place a high
priority on buildings’ entryways and their relationship to the street. Pedestrian usability
shall be prioritized over vehicular usability. Buildings shall include human scaled elements,
architectural articulation and, in projects containing more than one building, design
variation.
January 31, 2012 Page 4
• Prescriptive Standard: A minimum lot width of 50 feet shall be required for any single-
family detached dwelling if the garage and/or driveway is served by access from the abutting
street, unless such lot also adjoins an alley or is located at the corner of two public streets.
Design flexibility is sometimes needed for infill/redevelopment due to pre-existing conditions. In
some cases, it can be next to impossible to meet all of the prescriptive standards required to fit a new
project into a well established area; and certainly more difficult than to “start fresh” on a greenfield
site. In order to provide design flexibility, PDOD development would be required to comply with
the “General Standard” of certain Sections of Article 3, and would be exempt from the subsequent
prescriptive standards within those Sections. PDOD development would be exempt from Article
4 standards entirely.
That said, it seems clear that certain sections of Article 3 should be followed in their entirety for
varying reasons, and PDOD development would not be exempt from the standards for Engineering,
Historic and Cultural Resources, and applicable Supplementary Regulations. Engineering standards
are not exempt because they regulate important health and safety issues, process-oriented elements
like development agreements, maintenance and repair guarantees, and off-site public access
improvements. Similarly, the section governing historic preservation is more process-oriented
versus prescriptive for those structures eligible for landmark designation. Supplementary
Regulations are specific process- and use-related standards that regulate items like signs, wireless
telecommunication, and specialty uses such as dog day-care facilities, and should apply to PDOD
projects.
PDOD would incorporate the policies of City Plan into the unique and challenging aspects of infill
development. In addition to meeting the “General Standards” in Article 3, PDOD projects must
achieve at least 45 points in 4 categories on a performance matrix. The matrix was modeled after
several examples of similar tools being used in other communities and sustainability-focused
organizations. It is designed to provide a quantifiable aspect of PDOD projects to supplement the
broad, qualitative “General Standards”. The matrix is located in the new Section 4.29 of the PDOD
Land Use Code Ordinance. (Attachment 5)
The matrix is a menu of site and building features/techniques that would encourage applicants to
incorporate sustainability principles into their project. It is divided into seven categories that mirror
the seven components of City Plan. The following describes the general concepts encouraged
within each category:
1. Culture, Parks and Recreation: public art, historic preservation, recreation opportunities.
2. Economic Health: job creation, targeted redevelopment.
3. Environmental Health: energy efficiency, natural resource protection/conservation.
4. High Performing Community: civic engagement, participation in City programs.
5. Livability: mixed-use, building form/design.
6. Safety and Wellness: community gardens, floodplain and fire safety.
7. Transportation: connectivity, multi-modal options, parking.
Each item within these categories is weighted depending on its value to the City in terms of
achieving the policies of City Plan. Applicants can receive 1, 2 or 4 points for incorporating an item
into their project.
January 31, 2012 Page 5
At the end of each category is a blank item that is designed to reward applicant for innovation or
outstanding performance. The applicant innovation component is intended to acknowledge that
staff, at the time of PDOD adoption, could not possibly have included every potential
design/process/technique that is of value to the community within the matrix. As such, the blank
item was created to allow the applicant to be creative and incorporate something new/different than
what is available to choose from within the matrix. Furthermore, points may be awarded for
outstanding performance. This component is intended to provide extra points for an applicant that
goes above and beyond within a particular category. For example, an applicant that provides 100%
of the residential units to low income households could gain an extra 8 points for outstanding
performance in terms of providing affordable housing.
Developing the matrix was a very collaborative effort on the part of many City departments, local
planning consultants, and other community groups. For this reason, staff is confident that the matrix
items are attainable and provide encouragement to incorporate innovation into PDOD projects,
ultimately resulting in high-quality projects. The point system was “case-tested” against seven
recently-built and/or approved infill projects in order to calibrate the point system and ensure that
the required 45 points results in a high-quality project.
Summary comparison of development standards for PDOD versus the current process:
Current Process PDOD
• Article 4, Districts
• Article 3, General Development
Standards
• Article 3:
- “General Standards”
- Entire Section for Engineering,
Historic, and Supplementary
Regulations
• 45 points in 4 categories on performance
matrix
Land Use
An additional distinction of the PDOD is that applicants would have flexibility in the land uses they
include in their project. There are currently 25 distinct zone districts, each with a list of permitted
uses. PDOD projects would be able to include any use that is allowed within the underlying zone
district where it is located, but would also be able to include uses that are permitted in other zone
districts throughout the city. This is not intended to allow for any use anywhere; uses not expressly
permitted by the underlying zone district must meet additional criteria to be added by PDOD
projects to ensure it is designed and/or mitigated appropriately.
Summary comparison of land use allowances:
Current Process PDOD
• Permitted uses established for each zone
district.
• Permitted uses established by underlying
zoning.
• Uses permitted in other zone districts.
January 31, 2012 Page 6
Vested Property Right
A vested property right refers to the right to undertake and complete the development and use of the
property under the terms and conditions of an approved final plan. The term of vesting is currently
three years, meaning an applicant has three years from the time his/her final plan is approved to
install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights,
fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance with City codes. As an encouragement to use the
PDOD and provide additional flexibility, the term of vested right for those projects would be
extended to five years.
Review Process
A final variation that distinguishes the PDOD relates to the review process. The standard review
process has three plan types: an overall development plan (ODP), project development plan (PDP),
and final plan. The differences between these lies with the level of project detail. PDOD projects
would have a similar, yet separate, process with different names for each of the plan types. The
three PDOD plan types would be: general development plan (GDP), detailed development plan
(DDP), and complete development plan.
There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps
include:
1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review.
2. Neighborhood Meeting.
3. Application Submittal.
4. Type 1 Review (decision-maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision-maker is
the Planning and Zoning Board).
From the perspective of the applicant/developer, PDOD projects would not have any additional
review steps other than what is already required; however, PDOD applicants would have the option
to participate in a pre-application informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board. The
optional session with the Planning and Zoning Board would provide the applicant the opportunity
to present basic concepts of the project and receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after
the existing pre-application session that applicants can have with City Council for certain
development applications. The intent is to provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about
the project in hopes of identifying any major concerns that can be addressed in the formal submittal.
Another distinction is that all PDOD projects will have a Development Review Outreach (DRO)
meeting. The DRO is a meeting between staff and affected property owners without the applicant,
where staff explains the review process and clarifies when and how neighbors will have the
opportunity to provide input on a project. DRO meetings are relatively new and were implemented
as a result of several development review process improvements made in 2011.
A final difference is that all PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning that
the Planning and Zoning Board would decide whether or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews
are typically reserved for more complex development projects, and staff anticipates that infill
development and redevelopment projects using PDOD would need this level of review.
January 31, 2012 Page 7
Summary comparison of the development review process:
Current Process PDOD
Plan Types
• Overall Development Plan
• Project Development Plan
• Final Plan
Plan Types
• General Development Plan
• Detailed Development Plan
• Complete Development Plan
Review
• Conceptual Review
• Preliminary Design Review
• Neighborhood Meeting
• Application Submittal
• Type 1 or Type 2 Review
Review (differences in bold)
• Development Review Outreach
• Conceptual review
• Preliminary Design Review
• Neighborhood Meeting
• Optional Planning and Zoning Board
Pre-Application Meeting
• Application Submittal
• Type 2 Review (Planning and Zoning
Board is decision maker)
A compilation of PDOD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is attached for more information
(Attachment 3).
Outreach
Listed below are completed and upcoming outreach meetings:
2011
• 3/11, 4/15, 5/15, 6/10, 8/12, 11/10, 11/17, 12/3 – Planning and Zoning Board
• 4/14 – Urban Renewal Authority’s Developers/Brokers Luncheon
• 4/27 – South Fort Collins Business Association
• 6/14 – City Council Work Session
• 7/27 – Landmark Preservation Commission
• 9/19, 12/19 – Air Quality Advisory Board
• 9/19 – Local Planning Consultants
• 10/3 – Climate Wise Business Partners
• 10/19 – Natural Resources Advisory Board
• 10/21, 12/9 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• 11/8 – Fort Collins Board of Realtors
• 11/16, 12/13, 12/21 – Transportation Board
2012
• 1/13 – Planning and Zoning Board
• 1/18 – Economic Advisory Commission
January 31, 2012 Page 8
The following City Departments were consulted:
• Advance Planning
• Building
• Current Planning
• Development Lead Team
• Economic Health
• Engineering
• Historic Preservation
• Land Use Code Team
• Natural Areas
• Natural Resources
• Office of Sustainability
• Traffic
• Transportation Planning
• Urban Renewal Authority (Redevelopment) Team
• Utilities
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, June 24, 2011
2. Map of the PDOD Boundary
3. PDOD Frequently Asked Questions
4. Ordinance Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a new Planning Development
Overlay Zone District (DRAFT)
5. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
S SHIELDS ST
E VINE DR
INTERSTATE 25
S COLLEGE AVE
S TIMBERLINE RD
S LEMAY AVE
E PROSPECT RD
E DRAKE RD
E HORSETOOTH RD
N SHIELDS ST
N TAFT HILL RD
W DRAKE RD
LAPORTE AVE
ZIEGLER RD
E LINCOLN AVE
E MULBERRY ST
RIVERSIDE AVE
W MULBERRY ST
W PROSPECT RD
W HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD
N COLLEGE AVE
N LEMAY AVE
E COUNTY ROAD 52
W HORSETOOTH RD
W VINE DR
COUNTRY CLUB RD
N TIMBERLINE RD
N US HIGHWAY 287
E WILLOX LN
STRAUSS CABIN RD
W WILLOX LN
MOUNTAIN VISTA DR
KECHTER RD
S SUMMIT VIEW DR
N COUNTY ROAD 11
9TH ST
S COUNTY ROAD 9
S LEMAY AVE
INTERSTATE 25
Planned Development Overlay District Boundary
Legend
Planned Development Overlay
Major Streets
O
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 1
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)
Why do we need the PDOD?
This tool is responding to a variety of issues development review staff, members of the public,
and the development community have brought to our attention. They include:
‐ A growing trend toward more redeveloped and infill development projects throughout
the City. These infill situations are very different than “greenfield” projects, often
requiring more creativity and flexibility due to constrained sites and existing conditions.
The current code is primarily intended for greenfield sites, but infill often can not meet
the prescriptive standards of the current system without multiple modifications of
standards. PDOD offers the opportunity to focus on site issues, context, and land use to
incorporate creative solutions for these complex sites.
‐ With prescriptive standards, applicants find little incentive to go above code minimums.
PDOD will encourage projects to incorporate sustainable building and site features that
accomplish broader community goals and provide public benefits.
‐ The Land Use Code codified the “how‐to” in terms of meeting development objectives,
and such a prescription never fits every circumstances. All sites are different and
present different challenges and opportunities, especially when it comes to
infill/redevelopment, necessitating flexibility to produce quality development.
What is the intent/purpose of PDOD?
The PDOD is optional for sites within the overlay and intended for constrained infill sites and
redevelopment. Applicants with sites outside the overlay boundary may opt in and use the
PDOD if the site abuts developed land and it is constrained or will be redeveloped. The PDOD is
intended to allow stakeholders involved in the planning process, (applicants, staff and
neighbors) to focus on the issues and discuss meaningful and creative ways to resolve those
issues. The PDOD process will require applicants to think about broad community development
objectives; objectives that good designers/site planners think about when incorporating a new
project into a community. The PDOD does not specify how those objectives should be met,
because there is acknowledgement that designers need freedom and flexibility to produce
quality projects specific to the location.
Are applicants required to use the PDOD?
No, the PDOD is an optional overlay. Applicants can decide at any point in the development
review process (prior to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board) to revert to the standard
Land Use Code process without penalty.
How does PDOD differ from the current development review process?
There are currently three plan types: an overall development plan, project development plan,
and final plan. The differences between these lies with the level of project detail. PDOD
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 2
projects would have a similar, yet separate process with different names for each of the plan
types. The three PDOD plan types would be: general development plan, detailed development
plan, and complete development plan. The table below shows how the nomenclature
compares:
PDOD All Other Districts
General Development Plan Overall Development Plan
Detailed Development Plan Project Development Plan
Complete Development Plan Final Plan
There are several steps in the current review process for each plan type. Generally, those steps
include:
1. Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review
2. Neighborhood Meeting
3. Application Submittal
4. Type 1 Review (decision‐maker is a hearing officer) or Type 2 Review (decision‐maker is
P&Z)
PDOD projects would not be subject to any additional review steps other than what is already
required; however, these projects would have the option to participate in a pre‐application
informational session with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z). The optional session with P&Z
would provide the applicant the opportunity to present basic concepts of the project and
receive feedback from the Board. This is modeled after the existing pre‐application hearing
that applicants can have with City Council for certain development applications. The intent is to
provide the applicant with preliminary feedback about the project in hopes of identifying any
major concerns that can be addressed in the formal submittal. Another difference is that all
PDOD projects would be processed as Type 2 reviews, meaning that P&Z would decide whether
or not to approve the project. Type 2 reviews are typically reserved for more complex
development projects, and staff anticipates that infill development and redevelopment projects
using PDOD would need this level of review.
What are the permitted uses?
Any use permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted in the PDOD, and any use
permitted in any other zone district will be permitted, provided that criteria are met, e.g. the
use is designed compatibly, impacts will be mitigated, etc.
What standards does a PDOD project need to comply with?
Applicants will have to meet the “General Standard” of Article 3 Sections, releasing the need to
meet the prescriptive requirements contained within each of those Sections. Certain Sections
will have to be met in their entirety, including Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and
applicable Supplemental Standards in Article 3.
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 3
In addition, PDOD projects will have to achieve at least 45 points in 4 categories as established
on the PDOD performance matrix.
Why do PDOD plan types have different names (GDP, DDP and CDP vs. ODP, PDP and FP) than
current projects?
The City wants to ensure that the process for PDOD development is called out separately in
order to avoid confusion because, though they are similar, there are distinct differences in
terms of how development standards are applied, vesting, and the optional Planning and
Zoning Board pre‐application session.
How does the underlying zoning play into PDOD?
Any use permitted in the underlying zoning is permitted for PDOD projects and uses outside
that zoning district may be considered, provided certain criteria are met.
Any development standards contained within the underlying zoning district do not apply to
PDOD projects; instead, PDOD projects must comply with all applicable “General Standards”
from Article 3, and Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Supplementary Standards
in their entirety.
Will any use be considered?
Uses not specified in the underlying zoning will be considered in the PDOD review process
provided the following criteria are met:
‐ Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed permitted uses in the underlying
zone district to which it is added;
‐ The negative impacts of such other use will be mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible; and
‐ Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone district, or a use permitted in
any other zone district of the City, complies with the PDOD standards.
How do Article 3 standards apply for PDOD projects?
PDOD projects must meet the applicable “General Standard” of Sections 3.2, and 3.4 through
3.6 but not the prescriptive standards located within each of those sections. Section 3.4.7
Historic and Cultural Resources, and Division 3.3 and 3.7 though 3.11 must be met in their
entirety where they apply.
Do PDOD projects have flexibility with Stormwater standards?
No more so than what is already allowed. Stormwater development standards are contained in
the Municipal Code, not the Land Use Code, and are therefore not changed by adoption of the
PDOD.
Does this replace the Addition of Permitted Use?
No, the Addition of a Permitted Use process is still available for non‐PDOD projects.
Why would an applicant choose to do PDOD?
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 4
‐ Use flexibility: other uses may be considered in addition to those uses permitted by the
underlying zoning.
‐ Design flexibility: projects do not have to meet prescriptive standards and can be
designed to accommodate the context of the site and neighborhood.
‐ Extended vested rights: applicants will have five years, as opposed to the current 3
years, to build the significant infrastructure for their project.
‐ Opportunity to be innovative: creative planning and design solutions are encouraged
that might otherwise have been stifled by the prescriptive nature of the Article 3 and
Article 4 Standards.
Where can PDOD be used?
A map exists which defines the boundaries; sites located within the overlay automatically have
the option to use the PDOD. If a site is located outside of the overlay boundary, it may be
allowed to use the PDOD if at least 50% of the site abuts developed land and at least one of the
following is met:
‐ The site has special physical characteristics, including but not limited to irregular or odd‐
shaped lots/parcels, or lots/parcels with significant topographical barriers to standard
development or construction practices; or
‐ The site has been previously developed.
Why not have this available everywhere?
PDOD is intended to be a tool to encourage infill and redevelopment; while more and more
development is of this type, there is still vacant greenfield land where the LUC is a more
appropriate tool. This is why the PDOD boundary is drawn to incorporate targeted infill and
redevelopment areas. Only constrained sites that meet certain criteria will be given the option
to use PDOD if they are outside the established boundary.
What is wrong with our current development review process?
Nothing is inherently wrong with the current process; however, the City will continue to see
more infill/redevelopment as time goes on and the prescriptive nature of the Land Use Code
routinely hinders creative planning solutions. Such projects require multiple modifications of
standards which, again, are not inherently bad or wrong; but it is not necessarily the best
approach or most efficient way to review these complex projects.
What is the City getting in return for allowing the applicant flexibility in design and use?
The goal is to encourage community goals and benefits in private development by requiring at
least 45 points in 4 categories on the performance matrix. The City will get high‐performing,
sustainable development projects.
How will the public be involved in the review process?
There are multiple ways:
‐ Development Review Outreach (DRO) meeting between staff and neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 5
‐ A neighborhood meeting is required for PDOD projects that will encourage a charrette‐
style workshop with property owners to get them involved in the
constraint/opportunity identification.
‐ Applicants can receive additional points on the matrix if they go above and beyond in
terms of involving neighbors in the planning process, e.g. extra meetings, online project
information/forum, etc.
‐ If the applicant chooses to participate in the optional pre‐application session with the
Planning and Zoning Board, the public will be able to attend and comment on the
project.
‐ Public hearing.
How does the decision maker approve/deny a project?
Projects will be evaluated in two ways:
‐ Applicants will have to meet the “General Standard” of Article 3 Sections, along with
Engineering, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Supplemental Standards in Article 3 in
their entirety.
‐ The development must obtain at least 45 points by choosing and committing to
build/implement certain performance standards contained in the performance matrix.
How does the Matrix work?
The matrix is a menu of site and building features and techniques meant to encourage
sustainability in the development project. There are seven categories which mirror the seven
sections of City Plan: economic health; environmental health; community and neighborhood
livability; transportation; culture, parks and recreation; safety and wellness; and, high
performing community.
Within each of those sections is a variety of elements encouraged in a project. Each item is
weighted depending on the value to the community. Lower value items can receive either 1 or
2 points; higher value items can receive 2 or 4 points. Within each category is a blank item that
is intended to encourage applicant innovation. The applicant can suggest something that is not
already listed on the matrix and receive points if it provides value and meets the intent of
whichever category it falls within. Additionally, applicants may receive extra points for
“outstanding performance” if they go above and beyond in a particular category, e.g. providing
100% of the residential units to low‐income households and thus achieving an affordable
housing priority.
What type of sites would use this process?
Infill sites with existing infrastructure or unique geographic issues that create unique design
challenges. Redevelopment projects would also benefit from the PDOD.
The LUC was intended to provide predictability for residents and developers in the sense that
they knew what could happen where and what standards applied to all projects. This process
brings back the uncertainty that we were trying to get away from with the LDGS. Why is this
before the Board/Council?
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 6
The only uncertainty is that a use that was not previously permitted may be allowed. These
cases will be analyzed very carefully and it is not a case where any use is permitted anywhere.
Specific criteria must be met and the project must achieve points on the performance matrix,
which means the project is going beyond what would normally be required through the
standard LUC review process.
Is it anticipated that this process will be used often?
No, this process is not for every site and/or applicant. The process lends itself toward
troublesome sites or applicants that wish to think outside the box.
What were the concerns of developers and/or consultants?
‐ Too process heavy/time intensive. Staff has mitigated this concern by making the PDOD
review as process‐neutral as possible by not requiring any additional review/meetings
than would ordinarily be expected of development. It must be recognized, however,
that infill development and redevelopment is inherently more complex and therefore
will likely be more time intensive to develop regardless of whether it is going through
the existing process or PDOD.
‐ Uncertainty of approval/risky. This is a concern because PDOD projects will be required
to have a Type 2 review, which means that the Planning and Zoning Board is the
decision‐maker. Some consultants have expressed that clients might rather have a
Hearing Officer be the decision‐maker (Type 1 review) to eliminate the risk of having to
receive a majority vote of approval.
How do the TOD and PDOD work together?
The PDOD boundary is very similar to the TOD Overlay boundary; both are tools to encourage
higher density, urban infill development in targeted areas within the City. PDOD development
will have to comply with TOD standards. TOD standards were designed to encourage the exact
type of development that PDOD is also trying to encourage. TOD standards are also fairly
broad; they mostly speak to having high quality buildings materials, encouraging pedestrian
orientation, and set a minimum building height to achieve desired density. PDOD will provide
development in the TOD with flexibility on prescriptive standards in the Land Use Code, and
PDOD will also ensure that the development is meeting broader community sustainability goals.
Why an Overlay?
Several different options were considered including hybrid zoning, form based code, traditional
planned unit development, and performance‐based zoning. Other communities generally
restrict where they allow flexibility in their zoning and traditionally, it is for complex
infill/redevelopment areas. In order to accomplish the fact that this is an option tool, presenting
it as an overlay makes the most sense, because an applicant can choose whether to comply
with standard zoning and development standards, or he/she can opt to use PDOD standards
and process. An overlay allows for the existing zoning to coexist with the flexible zoning option.
How will Engineering Standards be affected?
ATTACHMENT 3
PDOD FAQ’s 7
The Land Use Code contains engineering standards in Article 3, Division 3.3, which govern plat
standards, development improvements, water hazards, hazards, and engineering design
standards. These types of standards are standard for all development and should not be flexed.
Therefore, this Section of the LUC will apply to PDOD development in its entirety.
How will Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) be affected?
PDOD development will have to comply with LCUASS standards. The process to receive a
variance from LCUASS standards is administrative as opposed to the Land Use Code
modification of standard process which is taken to the ultimate decision maker for final
decision.
How will the City ensure Matrix items are implemented/monitored?
PDOD applicants will be approved based on the score they receive on the matrix. Therefore, the
project’s matrix commitments will get recorded on the site plan. This will ensure Matrix items
are not forgotten. Building and zoning inspectors who review compliance with the site plan will
assure items are implemented.
Will PDOD projects have to comply with the Green Building Code amendments?
Yes, the Green Building Code will apply to all PDOD projects. In essence, this code is the “base”,
and PDOD projects will be encouraged to incorporate additional green building and site
features into their projects using the performance matrix.
Will there be additional fees to use the PDOD?
No. The fee structure for general development plans, detailed development plans, and
complete development plans will mirror those currently established for overall development
plans, project development plans, and final plans, respectively.
1
ORDINANCE NO. _____, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted City Plan Policy EH 4.2 which directs staff
to develop new policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to infill
development and redevelopment with emphasis on a sustainable, flexible, and predictable
approach to such development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 Work Program identifies a
need for a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a proposed flexible zoning tool in accordance
with the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011 Work Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development Overlay District provides for flexibility
while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability goals are met; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the
proposed Land Use Code changes regarding the Planned Development Overlay Zone
District and have recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (M) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References. In applying
the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code, the term overall
ATTACHMENT 4
2
development plan shall be deemed to mean a general development plan, the term project
development plan shall be deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term
final plan shall be deemed to mean a complete development plan. This Land Use Code
shall be administered accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject
matter or context requires a different interpretation.
Section 2. That Section 2.2.10(A)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the
character of the development, or with respect to applications
filed under Division 2.15, the minor amendment continues to
comply with the provisions of Section 4.29(D); or
Section 3. That Section 2.2.10(A)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the
character of the development, or with respect to applications
filed under Division 2.15, the minor amendment continues to
comply with the provisions of Section 4.29(D); or
Section 4. That Section 2.2.11(D)(9) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
. . .
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an
overall development plan or a project development plan that has been
denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal,
or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or
in part, as the subject of another overall development plan or project
development plan application for a period of six (6) months from the
date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as
applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the
granting of an exception to this requirement would not be detrimental
to the public good and would: (a) substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of City-wide concern; or (b) result in a
substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need
specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution
of the City Council. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
applications filed under Division 2.15.
3
Section 5. That Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability
The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General
Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and
Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity
standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District
Permitted Uses contained in Article 4, either for: (1) overall development plans
and/or project development plans which are pending approval at the time that the
request for proposed modification is filed; (2) overall development plans and/or
project development plans which the applicant intends to file, provided that such
plans are in fact filed with the Director as development applications within one
(1) year following the determination of the decision maker on the request for the
proposed modification; or (3) development plans approved under prior law and
which are sought to be amended (either as a minor or major amendment) pursuant
to Section 2.2.10. This modification of standards process shall not apply so as to
allow any modification of the requirements contained in Division 4.29 of this
Land Use Code.
Section 6. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Division 2.15 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 2.15 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
(PDOD) REVIEW PROCEDURES
2.15.1 General Development Plan
(A) Purpose. The general development plan shall establish general planning
and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in
phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to
permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of a general
development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property
in accordance with the plan.
(B) Applicability. A general development plan shall be required for any
property to be developed within the Planned Development Overlay
District that is to be developed over time in two (2) or more separate
detailed development plan submittals.
(C) Process. A general development plan shall be processed according to, in
compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1
and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures,
as follows:
4
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents required for general development plans as described in
the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing
submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the
specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the
full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All general development plans will
be processed as Type 2 reviews.
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings
at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and
Plats): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A general development plan shall
show all proposed uses and all proposed phasing, to the extent that
such uses and phasing can be reasonably known, and shall be
consistent with Division 4.29, except that the general development
plan is exempt from the minimum required points on the Planned
Development Overlay Zone District performance matrix.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “general
development plan” is referred to as “overall development plan”.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable.
(13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for
approval of general development plans in the PDOD are
5
encouraged to participate in the following optional review
procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have completed
their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. Such review is
intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present
conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about
the ways in which they intend to deal with site constraints, issues
of controversy or opportunities related to the development project.
Applicants participating in such review procedure should present
specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any
issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and
the affected property owners. All pre-application sessions under
this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps (6), (7)(B), and (7)(C) of the Common
Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to
be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the
scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior
to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required
to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the
proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision
maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the
proposal. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested
for any general development plan.
2.15.2 Detailed Development Plan
(A) Purpose. The detailed development plan shall contain descriptions of the
uses of the land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural
elevations and buildings and shall include the plat (when such plat is
required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this Code). Approval of a detailed
development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property
in accordance with the plan.
(B) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review and preliminary
design review meetings and after the Director has made written comments,
and after a neighborhood meeting has been held, an application for a
PDOD detailed development plan review may be filed with the Director.
If the project is to be developed over time in two (2) or more separate
detailed development plan submittals, a general development plan shall
be required subject to the requirements of Division 2.15.1.
(C) Process. A detailed development plan shall be processed according to, in
compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1
6
and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures,
as follows:
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents required for detailed development plans as described in
the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing
submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the
specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the
full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All detailed development plans will
be processed as Type 2 reviews.
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings
at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and
Plats): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A detailed development plan shall
be consistent with Division 4.29; and, when a detailed
development plan is within the boundaries of an approved general
development plan, the detailed development plan shall be
consistent with the general development plan.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “detailed
development plan” is referred to as “project development plan”.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable.
7
(13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for
approval of detailed development plans in the PDOD are
encouraged to participate in the following optional review
procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have completed
their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. Such review is
intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present
conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about
the ways in which they intend to deal withsite constraints, issues of
controversy or opportunities related to the development project.
Applicants participating in such review procedure should present
specific plans showing how, if at all, they inend to address any
issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and
the affected property owners. All pre-application sessions under
this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps (6), (7)(B), and (7)(C) of the Common
Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to
be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the
scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior
to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required
to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or
recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the
proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision
maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the
proposal. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested
for any detailed development plan.
2.15.3 Complete Development Plan
(A) Purpose. The purpose and applicability of a complete development plan is
contained in Section 2.1.3(D).
(B) Process. A complete development plan may only be submitted after
approval of a detailed development plan for the subject property or
concurrently with a detailed development plan for the subject property.
For consolidated applications for a detailed development plan and a
complete development plan, the applicant shall follow both the detailed
development plan and complete development plan review procedures.
A complete development plan shall be processed according to, in
compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1
and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures
(Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows:
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Not applicable.
8
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents required for complete development plans as described
in the development application submittal master list shall be
submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing
submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the
specific application, a particular requirement would either be
irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the
full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Not applicable.
(7) Step 7(A)-(C) (Decision Maker, Conduct of Public Hearing, Order
of Proceeding at Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in
substitution therefore, the Director is hereby authorized to, and
shall, review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or
deny the development application for a complete development plan
based on its consistency with a valid detailed development plan for
the subject property and its compliance with all of the standards
established in Step 8 of this Section. The Director may, but is not
obligated to, confer with the applicant or other city staff to obtain
clarification or explanation, gain understanding, suggest revisions,
or otherwise discuss or learn about the development proposal and a
complete development plan, all for the purpose of ensuring a fully
consistent and compliant complete development plan.
Step 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Not applicable, except that
Step 7(D)(3) shall apply.
Step 7(E) (Notification to Applicant): Applicable.
Step 7(F) (Record of Proceedings): Not applicable, except that
Step 7(F)(2) shall apply.
Step 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A complete development plan
shall comply with Division 4.29 and be consistent with the detailed
development plan.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
9
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term of vested rights
contained in Section 2.2.11(D)(3) shall be five (5) years.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Not applicable. The Director’s decision shall
be final and no appeal of the Director's decision will be allowed;
however, the Director may refer the decision to the Planning and
Zoning Board when the Director is in doubt as to the compliance
and consistency of the complete development plan with the
approved detailed development plan. If the Director refers the
decision to the Planning and Zoning Board, the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board shall be final and shall not be
appealable to the City Council, notwithstanding any provision of
the City Code to the contrary.
Section 7. That Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (C) which reads in its entirety as follows:
3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
. . .
(C) General Standard. All development shall be designed throughout to
accommodate active and/or passive solar installations to the extent
reasonably feasible.
Section 8. That Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas,
compatible with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation,
storage, loading and pickup of trash and recyclable materialsby requiring
that adequate, convenient space is functionally located at multi-family
residential, commercial and industrial land use sites.
. . .
(C) General Standard. All development, to the extent reasonably feasible,
shall provide adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible trash and
recycling enclosures to accommodate the specific needs of the proposed
use.
Section 9. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
10
3.4.3 Water Quality
The development shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal water
quality standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and
sedimentation, storm drainage and runoff control, solid wastes, and hazardous
substances. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from
the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Storm Drainage
Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Treatment measures may include, but
shall not be limited to:
minimization of impervious surfaces
runoff spreaders
infiltration devices
extended detention
constructed wetlands
sand filters
water quality inlets
General Standard. Projects shall be designed so that precipitation runoff flowing
from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater
Criteria Manual.
Section 10. That Section 3.4.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.4.4 Noise and Vibration
The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise
generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the
city’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code), and so
that any vibration created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without
instruments at any point along the property line. Noise generated by emergency
vehicles and airplanes shall be exempted from the requirements of this provision.
General Standard. Proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that
any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations
contained in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 20, Article II of the
City Code), and so that any vibration caused by the use of the property will be
imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line.
Section 11. That Section 3.4.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.4.8 Parks and Trails
(A) Establishment of Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan. In
order to accomplish the purposes of this Land Use Code, the location, size
11
and characteristics of parks and trails have been established on a plan
entitled "City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master
Plan" dated December 1996, as amended, which plan is hereby made a
part of this Land Use Code by reference. The Parks and Recreation Policy
Plan Master Plan is on file with the City Clerk.
(B) Purpose. The compliance of development plans with the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan ensures that the community will have a fair and
equitable parks, trail and recreation system as the community grows.
Establishment of the facilities in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan
generally provides the same level of service to new portions of the
community as the existing community enjoys.
(BC) Compliance with Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan
General Standard. All development plans shall provide for or
accommodate the parks and trails identified in the Parks and Recreation
Policy Plan Master Plan that are associated with the development plan.
Section 12. That Section 3.5.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
. . .
(B) Architectural Character General Standard. New developments in or
adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the
established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not
definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land
Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced
standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition
of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor
spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door
patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and
textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed
infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural
compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be
derived from the neighboring context.
. . .
Section 13. That Section 3.5.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly:
12
3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards in this Section are
intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian-oriented streets
in residential development.
(B) General Standard. Development projects containing residential buildings
shall place a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to
the street. Pedestrian usability shall be prioritized over vehicular usability.
Buildings shall include human-scaled elements, architectural articulation,
and in projects containing more than one (1) building, design variation.
. . .
Section 14. That Section 3.5.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows with all remaining subsections relettered accordingly:
3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
(A) Purpose. These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban
environment that is built to human scale. to encourage attractive street
fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as
the first priority, while also accommodating vehicular movement.
(B) General Standard. Mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall be
designed with a variety of scales, creating a mass and composition of
detail at the street level that is appropriate to the pedestrian, in order to
encourage attractive street fronts. Street fronts and walkways shall
accommodate pedestrians as the first priority, while also accommodating
vehicular movement. Buildings shall be designed with predominant
materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored
specifically to the site and its context.
. . .
Section 15. That Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (B) which reads in its entirety as follows with all
remaining subsections relettered accordingly:
3.5.4 Large Retail Establishments
. . .
(B) General Standard. Large retail buildings shall provide a high level of
architectural interest by utilizing high quality materials and design and
shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Large retail
13
buildings shall have pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity, and
shall mitigate any negative impacts. Buildings shall be designed with
predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas
tailored specifically to the site and its context.
. . .
Section 16. That Section 3.5.5 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection (B) which reads in its entirety as follows and all remaining
subsections relettered accordingly:
3.5.5 Convenience Shopping Center
. . .
(B) General Standard. Neighborhood convenience shopping centers shall be
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood utilizing
high quality materials and finishes, and shall be internally compatible and
harmonious with respect to quality design, aesthetics and materials,
tailored specifically to the site and its context.
. . .
Section 17. That Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which read in their entirety as follows with
the current subsections (A) through (C) relettered accordingly:
3.6.1 Master Street Plan
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the transportation network
of streets, alleys, roadways and trails is in conformance with adopted
transportation plans and policies established by the City.
(B) General Standard. The transportation network of any proposed
development shall be in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Master
Street Plan, as well as City adopted access control plans and the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards.
. . .
Section 18. That Section 3.6.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new subsections (A) and (B) which read in their entirety as follows with the
current subsections (A) through (M) relettered accordingly:
3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
14
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the various components of
the transportation network are designed and implemented in a manner that
promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the City.
(B) General Standard. Public streets, public alleys, private streets, street-like
private drives, and private drives shall be designed and implemented in a
manner that establishes a transportation network that protects the public
health, safety and welfare. Rights-of-way and/or easements for the
transportation system shall be sufficient to support the infrastructure being
proposed. The transportation network shall clearly identify construction
and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed infrastructure. All
responsibilities and costs for the operation, maintenance and
reconstruction of private streets, street-like private drives, and private
drives shall be borne by the property owners. The City shall have no
obligation tooperate , maintain or reconstruct such private streets, street-
like private drives, and private drives nor shall the City have any
obligation to accept such private streets, street-like private drives, and
private drives.
. . .
Section 19. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a
new Division 4.29 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVSIION 4.29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (P-D-O-D)
(A) Purpose and Applicability.
(1) Purpose. The Planned Development Overlay District
(“PDOD”) is a district within certain areas of the City designed to
provide an optional process for reviewing an applicant’s
compliance with the applicable land use, design and development
standards established by underlying zone districts and Article 3 of
this Land Use Code. The district is intended to further the City’s
sustainability goals as set forth in City Plan, and to provide
flexibility in the design of development to best utilize the potential
of sites that are characterized by exceptional geographic features,
topography, size, shape and/or the constraints of existing
development. The district is intended to provide a development
review process that encourages heightened dialogue and
collaboration among applicants, affected property owners,
neighbors and City staff.
(2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22)
shall be eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in
15
Section D instead of the development standards in Article 3 and
the underlying zone district, at the option of the developer.
(a) In order to utilize the PDOD zone district regulations, the
proposed development must be under single ownership or
control to ensure that there is a single entity responsible for
completing the project. The applicant shall provide
sufficient documentation of ownership or control to
indicate the development will be completed in its entirety
by a signal entity as proposed.
(b) If a property is not located within the PDOD, it may be
deemed eligible by the Director to be placed in the district,
provided that at least fifty (50) percent of the site abuts
developed land and that the applicant can demonstrate that
one or more of the following criteria have been met:
1. The site has exceptional physical conditions,
including but not limited to irregular or odd-shaped
lots, or lots with significant topographical barriers;
or
2. The site has been previously developed.
Figure 22
16
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in
the PDOD.
17
(2) Any use permitted in any other zone district of the City will be
permitted, only if such use conforms to all of the following
conditions:
(a) Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed
permitted uses in the underlying zone district to which it is
added;
(b) The impacts of such use will be mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible;
(c) Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone
district or a use permitted in any other zone district of the
City, complies with the land use standards contained in
paragraph (D) of this Section.
(C) Prohibited Uses. There are no expressly prohibited uses in the PDOD
zone district except those uses listed in Section 4.28(C)(1 through 9) of
this Land Use Code, and uses that are not listed as permitted uses in any
zone district of the City.
(D) Land Use Standards. Development in the PDOD shall comply with the
following:
(1) Divisions 3.3 and 3.7 through 3.11 of Article 3 of this Land Use
Code in their entirety;
(2) The “General Standards” of all Sections in Divisions 3.2, and 3.4
through 3.6;
(3) Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources in its entirety; and
(4) Any development in the PDOD must also score at least forty-five
(45) points from at least four (4) categories as established on the PDOD
performance matrix (Figure 23).
Figure 23
Application of the Planned Development Overlay Disrict
(PDOD) Performance Matrix
18
The following provides clarification on how projects will be evaluated under the Planned
Development Overlay District Performance Matrix and provides more detailed
definitions for the performance criteria contained in the matrix.
The performance criteria established in this performance matrix are not intended to
supersede any requirements established in other documents governing public rights-of-
way such as the Municipal Code, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, and the
City’s Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Any proposal to implement
performance criteria within public rights-of-way is subject to additional review under the
criteria previously established within the appropriate other documents.
Performance Matrix Evaluation
An applicant may choose which of the performance criteria to incorporate within the
development project and will be assigned a score. A minimum of forty-five (45) points
must be obtained from at least four (4) of the seven (7) performance categories in order
for the development project to be approved.
An applicant may receive a score of 0, 2, or 4 if a particular criterion has been established
in the matrix as being of significant value to the City. The numerical score is assigned
based upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
An applicant may receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 if a particular criterion has been established
in the matrix as being of lesser value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based
upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
1 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
2 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
Some of the criteria are worded such that they will either be implemented or not,.
Therefore, there are no degrees of implementation for these criteria. Depending upon the
value of the criterion to the City, the numerical score is assigned based upon the
following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
1/2/4 Implementation of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the
site.
19
Applicant Innovation or Outstanding Performance
Within each performance category is a criterion that is intentionally left blank and can be
completed by the applicant. The purpose of this criterion is to encourage innovative
techniques not otherwise identified within the performance matrix. An applicant must
clearly describe the proposed technique and how it will promote established City policies
relevant to the particular category. Furthermore, an applicant may receive points for
performing exceedingly well in a particular category. There is no limit to the number of
“applicant innovations” within each category. The numerical score for an innovation or
outstanding performance is assigned based upon the following:
0 Failure to implement the criterion.
2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and
opportunities of the site.
8 Maximum implementation and/or outstanding performance in the category given the
constraints and opportunities of the site.
Definitions:
Environmental Health
1.5 See Section 3.2(E)(3) of the Land Use Code that details the considerations associated
with waterwise, or xeriscape, landscaping.
1.15
See the Land Use Code definitions in article V: Tree, significant shall mean any tree
with a DBH of six (6) inches or more. Section 3.2.1(F) describes in detail what a
significant tree is within the City of Fort Collins.
Economic Health
4.2
&
4.3
Primary job shall mean a job that derives fifty (50) percent or more of its income
and purchases outside of the City and sells fifty (50) percent or more of its
products or services outside of the City.
4.8 Underdeveloped or underutilized – shall mean a parcel/lot with less than twenty-
five (25) percent of its total land area developed or utilized.
Culture, Parks, and Recreation
5.5
Natural play area shall mean a natural playground, natural playscape, green
playground or natural play environment is an area where children can play with
natural elements such as sand, water, wood and living. Natural play areas must be
designed for active play and preferably by a landscape architect.
Safety and Wellness
6.7
Floatable materials shall mean any material that is not secured in place or
completely enclosed in a structure, so that it could float off site during the
occurrence of a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners,
20
or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge or other drainage facility. This
includes, without limitation, lumber, vehicles, boats, equipment, trash dumpsters,
tires, drums or other containers, pieces of metal, plastic or any other item or
material likely to float. Floatable materials shall not include motor vehicles parked
temporarily on property for the purpose of customer or employee parking, or a
business's temporary outdoor display of inventory during its usual hours of
operation.
6.8 Fill shall mean a deposit of materials of any kind placed by artificial means.
6.9
Dryland Access shall mean a gravel, paved or concrete access route that connects
a structure to a Dry Public Street, that is constructed above the base flood
elevation, and that is of sufficient width to accommodate both emergency vehicles
and other emergency access during evacuation of the site, considering the
estimated number of people using the site and the expected mode (car, walking) of
evacuation.
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)
Performance Matrix
Applicant must score 45 points at minimum from at least 4 categories.
* Definitions are available in the Appendix. Points
Culture, Parks, Recreation
1.1 Incorporates art, sculpture or fountains viewable to the public. 0 1 2
1.2
Designates the site, structure(s) or object(s) determined to be
individually eligible as a local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the State or National Register of Historic
Places.
0 2 4
1.3
Provides a plaza, pedestrian mall, public square, park or other
similar public open space within the project. 0 2 4
1.4
Rather than creating play spaces dominated by turf/sod grasses,
incorporates natural play opportunities into the site.* 0 2 4
1.5
Site is located within ¼ mile of an existing (4 points) or planned
(2 points) bike or other recreational trail and provides a
pedestrian/bike connection to the trail.
0 2 4
1.6
If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation,
participate in a complementary design review with the Landmark
Preservation Commission, and incorporate feedback into the final
design.
0 2
1.7
If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation,
participate in the Design Assistance Program administered
through the Historic Preservation Department, and incorporate
feedback into the final design.
0 4
1.8
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote
the City’s culture, parks, and recreation policies: 0 2 4 8
21
Economic Health
2.1
Creates or retains at least one locally-owned business, meaning a
business enterprise (sole proprietorship, partnership, limited
liability company, corporation, or other similar business entity)
with headquarters located within a 40 mile radius from the City's
Growth Management boundary.
0 1 2
2.2 Retains existing primary jobs.* 0 2
2.3 Creates at least 5 new primary jobs.* 0 2 4
2.4
At least one (1) business created or retained by the project is
associated with one of the City’s established Targeted Industry
Clusters (Bioscience, Water, Clean Energy, Software/Hardware,
Uniquely Fort Collins).
0 1 2
2.5
At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to
households earning between sixty (60) -eight (80) percent of Area
Median Income (AMI).
0 1 2
2.6
At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to
households earning less than sixty (60) percent of Area Median
Income (AMI).
0 2 4
2.7
Employes at least one (1) local contractor for
design/construction/deconstruction work, meaning a City-
licensed contractor with headquarters located within a forty (40)
mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary.
0 1 2
2.8 Site is undeveloped, underdeveloped, and/or underutilized.* 0 2
2.9 Site is located within the boundary of an Urban Renewal Plan
Area or the Downtown Development Authority. 0 2
2.10
Locates site within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing (4 points)
or funded (2 points) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop along the
Mason Corridor.
0 2 4
2.11 Assembles two (2) or more lots/parcels. 0 2 4
2.12 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s economic health policies: 0 2 4 8
Environmental Health
3.1 Designs and builds at least one (1) principal building to be
eligible for LEED certification. 0 2 4
3.2
Designs and builds all buildings to exceed the City’s Building
Energy Code by at least ten (10) percent. 0 2 4
3.3
Uses runoff from small rainfall events (total rainfall of .5 inches or less) for
landscape irrigation and/or onsite infiltration. Choose from all techniques listed
in 1.3a-j below which are described in detail in the City's Stormwater Criteria
Manual:
3.3a Contains grass buffer. 0 1 2
3.3b Contains srass swale. 0 1 2
22
3.3c Contains bioretention (rain garden or porous landscape
detention). 0 2 4
3.3d Contains green roof. 0 2 4
3.3e Contains extended detention basin (EDB). 0 2 4
3.3f Contains sand filter. 0 1 2
3.3g Contains wet pond with water quality capture volume (WQCV). 0 2 4
3.3h Contains constructed wetland pond. 0 2 4
3.3i Contains constructed wetland channel. 0 2 4
3.3j Contains permeable pavement. 0 2 4
3.4 Uses paving materials with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at
least twenty-nine (29). 0 1 2
3.5 Uses at least fifty (50) percent waterwise landscaping materials.* 0 1 2
3.6 Uses native plants for landscaping as defined in the Fort Collins
Native Plants guide. 0 1 2
3.7
In mixed-use and non-residential developments, includes recycle
containers adjacent to other waste collection receptacles in areas
accessible to the public.
0 1 2
3.8
Implements a three (3)-bin waste system by providing space for
trash, recycling, and composting accessible to residents and/or
tenants.
0 2
3.9
Restores preexisting degraded natural resources area on or
adjacent to the site, e.g. wetlands, native grasslands, riparian
forests, streams.
0 2 4
3.10
If the site is contiguous with a natural area or natural habitat or
feature, creates internally contiguous habitat opportunities on a
minimum of ten (10) percent of the overall land area of the site.
0 1 2
3.11
Designs and incorporates on-site renewable energy for at least
five (5) percent of total energy generation using technologies
such as solar, wind, geothermal, or biomass.
0 2 4
3.12
Designs and builds at least one (1) building so that it will readily
accommodate the installation of solar photovoltaic panels or solar
thermal hot water heating devices, including all necessary
conduit, chases, roof penetrations, roof pitch, and orientation.
For projects with multiple buildings, designs and builds at least
twenty (20) percent to be solar ready as described.
0 1 2
3.13
Uses any combination of solar reflective index (SRI) compliant
and vegetated roofing materials, provided they collectively cover
at least seventy-five (75) percent of the total project roof area.
0 2 4
3.14
Specifies and installs high efficiency equipment such as water
heaters, appliances, furnaces or air conditioning units in any
newly constructed or renovated buildings.
0 2
23
3.15
Protects valuable features including creeks, significant trees and
wetlands and, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate such
features into the overall design of the site as shared amenities.*
0 1 2
3.16
Provides space and equipment for shared
trash/recycling/composting activities and coordinates with
adjacent property owners to establish service sharing for waste
removal.
0 2 4
3.17
Re-uses deconstructed materials in the construction of new
buildings and/or other site features. 0 2 4
3.18
Provides and retrofits water quality treatment beyond minimum
requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria
Manual, including treatment for the original developed site, the
redeveloped portion, and any newly developed area.
0 1 2
3.19
Detains off-site runoff (identify source and provide adequate
volume of storage) beyond minimum requirements established in
the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual.
0 1 2
3.20
Coordinates with adjacent property owners to share water quality
and detention systems and/or facilities. 0 2 4
3.21 Provides on-site composting system(s) to process the site’s
organic waste. 0 1 2
3.22
Develops and implements a long-term vegetation management
plan that ensures proper training for staff, addresses weed
management and native plant establishment, and provides a
funding mechanism to address problems when they occur.
0 4
3.23
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s environmental health policies: 0 2 4 8
High Performing Community
4.1
Implements citizen engagement best practices throughout their
development review process such as an extra neighborhood
meeting, design-charrette with neighbors, or interactive project
blog. Provides the City with a written assessment of surrounding
neighborhood needs and concerns, and indicates how those needs
and concerns are being addressed by the project design.
0 4
4.2
The business(es) occupying the development is (1 point) or will
become (2 points) a City of Fort Collins Climate Wise partner. 0 1 2
4.3
Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program
(IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the
Prescriptive Approach.
0 2
4.4
Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program
(IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the
24
and provide the City with a written assessment of the identified
concerns, and address how those are being addressed by the
project.
4.6 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote
the City’s high performing community policies: 0 2 4 8
Livability
5.1
Includes two (2) or more use types. No one use shall amount to
less than ten (10) percent or more than eighty (80) percent of the
total development gross floor area. Individual phases of projects
may have a lesser mix if the applicant provides assurances
acceptable to the City that later phases will produce the required
overall mix.
0 2 4
5.2
Locates any residential component of the project within one-half
(½) mile of at least four of the following community facilities:
school, library, childcare or daycare, health care facilities,
community centers, family and human services, community
assembly use, park, recreation facility, public safety, public
buildings.
0 2
5.3 Adapts or re-uses at least one (1) existing non-accessory building
on the site. 0 2 4
5.4 Incorporates a mix of two (2) or more uses vertically. 0 4
5.5
Uses natural stone, synthetic stone, brick and/or concrete
masonry units (solely or in combination) to cover the first floor
elevation on exterior buildings that are visible to the public.
0 1 2
5.6
Adapts and incorporates prominent or distinctive design elements
from neighboring structures, e.g. rooflines, recesses, projections. 0 1 2
5.7
Designs the first floor of mixed-use building(s) so it can
accommodate commercial/retail and residential uses. 0 2
5.8
Includes neighborhood-serving retail in the project, e.g. grocery
store, dry cleaner. 0 1 2
5.9
Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s community and neighborhood livability
policies:
0 2 4 8
Transportation
6.1 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of existing (4 points)
or planned (2 points) transit stop. 0 2 4
6.2
Provides or enhances an existing pedestrian connection from the
site to an existing or funded transit stop. 0 2 4
6.3
Provides at least one (1) preferred parking space for carpool,
shared-use, and/or other alternatively-fueled vehicles along
street-like private drives and/or parking lots for every twenty-five
(25) parking spaces.
0 1 2
25
6.4
Uses street-like private drives for internal roadway connections
where connections are not necessary to be public streets. 0 1 2
6.5
Establishs pedestrian and bicycle Level Of Service (LOS) A as
defined in the Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of
Service Manual.
0 1 2
6.6
Provides at least one (1) charging station (“plug-in”) along street-
like private drives and/or parking lots for electric/hybrid vehicles. 0 2 4
6.7 Provides secured and covered bicycle storage spaces for residents
or employees. 0 2 4
6.8
Provides or enhances an existing public area and/or facility on
site for awaiting transit passengers. 0 1 2
6.9
Provides bicycle parking spaces greater than ten (10) percent of
the total number of automobile spaces. 0 2 4
6.10 Provides structured or below-ground parking (reduced parking
footprint). 0 2 4
6.11
Provides employees with at least one (1) shower per gender on-
site for every thirty (30) bicycle parking spaces. 0 2 4
6.12 Devotes less than twenty-five (25) percent of site to surface
parking. 0 1 2
6.13 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of a vehicle share
station (auto and/or bike share). 0 2 4
6.14
Coordinates with adjacent property owners to provide shared auto
parking facilities for the development. 0 2 4
6.15 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s transportation policies: 0 2 4 8
Safety and Wellness
7.1
Provides at least twenty (20) percent of the total landscaping with
plants that are edible or produce edible material, e.g. fruit or nut-
bearing trees.
0 1 2
7.2
Provides managed open space for a community garden or
composting activity with fencing and/or irrigation as needed. 0 2 4
7.3 Installs fire sprinkler systems in all single-family residential
units. 0 4
7.4
Provides an emergency evacuation plan which identifies
important safety features of all buildings, such as exit routes and
internal shelter locations (in case of tornados), safety equipment
such as fire escape ladders or extinguishers, and locations of
shutoffs for gas, water, and electricity.
0 2
7.5 Locates development outside of the flood fringe. 0 4
7.6
If the site is adjacent to a culvert or bridge, relocates buildings
and/or raises the elevation of the lowest floor (including
basement and crawlspace) to minimize flood damage should the
0 2 4
26
culvert or bridge become blocked by debris during a 100-year
flood.
7.7
Refrains from putting floatable materials on a site in the
floodplain fringe of any FEMA or City floodplain.* 0 2 4
7.8 Does not put fill in the 100-year flood fringe.* 0 4
7.9 Provides dryland access for 100-year flood.* 0 2 4
7.10 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in
promoting the City’s safety and wellness policies: 0 2 4 8
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th
day of March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of March,
A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of March, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 5
1
1
Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD)
City Council Work Session
January 31, 2012
2
General Direction Sought
1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the
PDOD?
2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about
implementing the PDOD?
3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the
PDOD Ordinance on March 6?
ATTACHMENT 5
2
3
Background
• Shifting development pattern from greenfield to more
infill/redevelopment.
• Existing Land Use Code (LUC) is prescriptive and can
hinder infill/redevelopment.
• Infill/redevelopment is more complex due to unique design
challenges created by existing infrastructure, buildings, and
surrounding context.
• Difficulty meeting LUC standards and requires
modifications.
4
Background
• Modifications do not mean the project is of lower quality; but
are not the best method for complex infill/redevelopment.
• Better to take site holistically and design to address major
planning issues.
• Flexibility is needed to allow for creative planning solutions
that result in desirable, high-quality projects.
ATTACHMENT 5
3
5
Policy Direction
• City Plan, Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill
Development and Redevelopment
• Transportation Master Plan, Policy T 4.5 – Infill and
Redevelopment Areas
• Planning and Zoning Board, 2011 Work Program
• City Council Work Session, June 2011
6
Methodology
• Identify infill/redevelopment barriers.
• Research flexible zoning practices.
• Develop PDOD Land Use Code framework.
• Research performance-based sustainability tools.
• Develop PDOD performance matrix.
• Refine PDOD with focused outreach.
ATTACHMENT 5
4
7
PDOD Basics
• Land Use Code tool to assist infill/redevelopment.
•Optional alternative to standard development processes.
• Unique blend of planning methodologies to provide flexibility
while assuring high-quality development.
• Overlay zone district.
8
Boundary
• Adapted from targeted infill
and redevelopment areas
and TOD Overlay.
• “Opt-in” included for
constrained sites outside
of boundary provided the
site:
– Abuts land that is 50%
developed and is:
• Constrained; or
• Previously
developed.
Harmony Rd
Vine Dr
Shields St
Prospect Rd
College Ave
ATTACHMENT 5
5
9
Land Use
Current Process
• Permitted uses established
by zoning.
PDOD
• Underlying zoning
establishes land use.
• Uses permitted in other
zone districts allowed
provided criteria are met:
– Designed compatibly;
– Impacts mitigated; and
– Use complies with
PDOD development
standards.
10
Review Process
Current Process
• Conceptual Review
• Preliminary Design
Review
• Neighborhood Meeting
• Application Submittal
• Type 1 or Type 2 Review
PDOD
• Development Review
Outreach
• Conceptual Review
• Preliminary Design
Review
• Neighborhood Meeting
• Optional P&Z Pre-
Application Meeting
• Application Submittal
• Type 2 Review
ATTACHMENT 5
6
11
Vested Right
Current Process
• 3 years to install and
complete engineering
improvements
PDOD
• 5 years to install and
complete engineering
improvements
The right to undertake and complete the development and
use of property under terms established by an approved
Final Plan.
12
Development Standards
Current Process
• Article 4, District
Standards
• Article 3, General
Development Standards
PDOD
• Article 3 Standards apply:
– “General Standards” of
certain Sections
• Meet minimum points on
the Performance Matrix
ATTACHMENT 5
7
13
Development Standards (cont’’d)cont d)
A. General Standard Example: All development shall be
designed throughout to accommodate active and/or
passive solar installations to the extent reasonably feasible.
B. Prescriptive Standard Example: At least 65% of the lots
less than 15,000 square feet in area in single- and two-
family residential developments must conform to the
definition of a “solar oriented lot” in order to preserve the
potential for solar energy use.
Source: LUC 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
14
Performance Matrix
• Supplements the broad “General Standards” with
quantifiable performance measures.
• Encourages “above-code” project design through a menu of
design and process techniques.
• Derived from City Plan principles and policies.
“General Standards”
Performance
Matrix
Foundation ‐ existing
Land Use Code
Above‐code
enhancements based
on City policies
ATTACHMENT 5
8
15
Performance Matrix (cont’’d)cont d)
• 7 categories (derived from City Plan):
• Weighted items: 1, 2 or 4 points.
• Minimum 45 points in 4 categories.
• Each category has a “blank” item for applicant innovation.
• Applicant can receive up to 8 extra points for outstanding
performance in a category.
Culture, Parks and Recreation
Economic Health
Environmental Health
High Performing Community
Livability
Safety and Wellness
Transportation
16
PDOD Benefits
Applicant/Developer
• Design flexibility.
• Land use flexibility.
• Extended vesting.
• Another tool to facilitate
infill/redevelopment.
Community
• Quality projects on
otherwise constrained
sites.
• Above-code sustainable
design.
• Supports the creation of a
dense urban environment.
• Another tool to facilitate
infill/redevelopment.
ATTACHMENT 5
9
17
General Direction Sought
1. Is Council clear regarding the purpose and use of the
PDOD?
2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about
implementing the PDOD?
3. Should staff proceed with Council consideration of the
PDOD Ordinance on March 6?
DATE: January 31, 2012
STAFF: Kelly DiMartino
Jim Clark, Convention and Visitors
Bureau Executive Director
Pre-taped presentation: available at
fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins contracts with the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (FCCVB)
to provide various convention and visitor services. In 2011, the FCCVB generated approximately
20,000 hotel room nights in group, meeting and convention sales, responded to more than 18,000
visitor inquiries, and generated over $2 million in coverage in national and international
publications.
The FCCVB will provide an overview of these and other efforts, share benchmark comparisons
related to the agency’s performance, and discuss plans and opportunities for the future.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback or questions does City Council have for the CVB regarding its services?
2. What input does City Council have for the CVB regarding future efforts and priorities? In
reviewing the strengths, challenges, opportunities and threats, are there particular areas on
which Council would like the CVB to focus?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins instituted a 3% lodging tax in 1984. Shortly thereafter, the Fort Collins Convention and
Visitors Bureau was formed to serve as the tourism and convention marketing and service agency
for the City. The City of Fort Collins contracts with the FCCVB to provide various convention and
visitors services. Since 2006, the contract has been based on a funding model whereby the FCCVB
receives 70% of the lodging tax dollars; the Cultural Resources Board receives the remaining 30%
to distribute as Fort Fund grants.
Within its contractual services, the FCCVB has developed a sales and marketing program for the
City that produces approximately $5 million in group, meeting and convention sales. The FCCVB
January 31, 2012 Page 2
services more than 40 groups annually that meet in Fort Collins, including organizations such as
CRU (Campus Crusade for Christ), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the American Softball Association.
The FCCVB provides information services for visitors and local citizens, receiving approximately
12,000 requests per year. In 2011, 100,000 Visitor Guides were distributed, and the FCCVB
responded to more than 18,000 individual requests.
Through cooperative partnerships with the Colorado Tourism Office, local businesses and other
Front Range destinations, the FCCVB has leveraged over $200,000 in advertising and marketing.
An analysis of the CVB’s competitive position demonstrates that Fort Collins has many desirable
assets and strong partnerships. Opportunities exist for further collaboration with the new Museum
of Discovery, Colorado State University, and the City’s Economic Health Office. Challenges
include the limited awareness of Fort Collins in the Denver market, changes in the region regarding
hotel availability, and increased budgets for competing jurisdictions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FCCVB 2011 Productivity Report
2. FCCVB 2011 Group Booking Report
3. FCCVB 2012 Board of Directors
4. Destination Lodging Tax and Marketing Organization Budget Comparisons
5. Powerpoint presentation
1
Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau
2011 Productivity Report
The following information is the productivity report for the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau
for 2011. This is a brief explanation of those productivity measures and terms, as well as the metrics we
use to measure productivity and benchmark our results.
Group Room Nights
This is the total number of hotel rooms multiplied by the number of nights that a group reserves or
contracts for. 100 hotel rooms for 3 nights = 300 room nights. Group room nights is a standard industry
measure. Many, but not all, convention and visitor bureaus (CVBs) use this measure of productivity as
one of their primary indicators of performance.
We place emphasis on groups with overnight stays, as overnight visitors spend on average about 10 to
15 times as much as day visitors.
Our goal for each year is to meet or exceed the production of the average of the previous 5 years.
Bookings and Servicing
CVBs are catalyst organizations. We work to connect the buyer (meeting planner, tour operator,
tournament organizer, etc.) with the supplier (hotel, facility, catering company, etc.) to facilitate a
transaction. Those groups that we have had a substantial level of involvement in are considered
“booked.” Every booking must begin with a “lead.”
There are other groups that we provide services for that we were not actively engaged in the
transaction; these are groups that we “service,” meaning we provide information, hospitality, welcome
guides and brochures.
Leads
These usually go to hotels or CSU conference services, but may also be for caterers, transportation or a
variety of other services required. We gather information from the client about their needs, and then
send a lead to the appropriate businesses. If the client requests confidentiality, we send leads only to
the properties or businesses that they have requested.
Booking pace/conversion
Many CVBs attempt to generate as many leads as possible to inflate their value, subsequently only
converting about 30% of their leads into definite business. We do not. One of the reasons our
conversion ratio is so high (goal of 60%, actual in 2011 of 70%) is that we qualify the business carefully
and thoroughly prior to sending out a lead.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Paid Ad Equivalency
When we work with a writer, journalist or broadcaster to generate publicity on Fort Collins, we measure
the effectiveness and impact through paid advertising equivalency. The actual amount of space in the
publication, or the air time in broadcast, is measured and we determine the advertising rate for the
same space. That number is multiplied by 2, as people will pay far more attention and have greater
retention of a feature story instead of an advertisement. This is an industry standard of the Destination
Management Association International and the Public Relations Society of America.
Again, the FCCVB’s practice is somewhat different than other CVBs in that our metrics reflect only
publicity for which we have been directly involved.
Visitor Inquiries
If an individual requests information (a Visitors Guide), we measure each of those by source of inquiry.
Most come from paid advertising, some directly through our web site, many through cooperative
advertising with the Front Range region. Each is mailed an Official Visitors Guide. We are also moving
to more sustainable practices. We have a Virtual Visitors Guide (a .pdf of the Visitor Guide), and to
reduce postage costs and print materials, we sometimes send post cards directing the visitor to the web
site for certain inquiries.
Visitor Inquiry Conversion Rate
We have used CSU students to conduct two conversion studies for us to measure how many individuals
who receive a Visitors Guide actually visit in the same season during which the Guide is requested. Our
average conversion rate is 60%.
3
2011 Results
Group, Meeting and Convention Sales
39 Leads generated
21 groups booked
7 leads lost, CVB turned down two opportunities
9 leads still pending for a total of 19,276 room nights
Booking pace 70% against a goal of 60%
20,336 total room nights generated
Average of past 6 years is 18,846; 109% of goal met
Serviced 50 groups; distributed more than 4,400 Welcome Packets
Public Relations
$2,074,616 in ad equivalency (note: broadcast numbers not in as of this date)
Visitor Inquiries
18,148 inquiries in 2011 (including 191 international inquiries)
12,356 visitors at Downtown Visitor Information Center
Approx. 99,000 visitors at Colorado State Welcome Center (I‐25 & Prospect)
Web Traffic
72,635 unique visits
Date of event
Group Name
Number
of
Rooms New Repeat
2/10/2011 All State Orchestra 500 X
4/29/2011 CO Rock Art Association 40 X
May‐ Sept 2011 National Propane Association 270 X
5/5/2011 French American Chamber of Commerce 10 X
June ‐ Aug 2011 Jehovah’s Witness (Five times a year) 5000 X
6/23/2011 Colorado Brewers Festival 30 X
6/27/2011 Heartland Youth Choir ‐ (Home stays) 0 X
6/30/2011 Bike MS 150 600 X
7/15/2011 Campus Crusade for Christ 6000 X
7/17/2011 Campus Crusade for Christ ‐ (catering event) 0 X
8/18/2011 Fort Collins Soccer Club 90 X
9/9/2011 2011 Park City Familiarization Trip 60 X
10/8/2011 USGP Cyclocross Fort Collins Cup 290 X
10/20/2011 Colorado Band Masters 770 X
11/14/2011 2012 Midwestern Sectional Figure Skating 1270 X
11/14/2011 Alliance for Innovation 190 X
4/19/2012 Select Hospitality, Boise State University 36 X
5/4/2012 National Club Baseball Assn – District Playoff 40 X
5/8/2012 CO Assn of Transit Agencies Spring Conference 390 X
6/30/2012 Triple Crown Sports – Junior Sparkler Tournament 1300 X
7/28/2013 IUPAC Symposium on Organometallic Chemistry 3450 X
Total 20336 13 12
Group Bookings Secured in 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau
2012 Board of Directors
1
Dr. Joseph O’Leary
Chair
At Large
3rd term ends 12/13
Professor, Colorado State University
215 Natural Resources Building
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1401
Work: 970/491-0436
Fax: 970/491-0279
E-mail: jtoleary@colostate.edu
Gary Buffington
Recreation & Sports
4th term ends 12/12
Director, Department of Natural Resources
1800 S. County Rd. 31
Loveland, CO 80537
Work: 970/679-4560
Fax: 970/679-4574
E-mail: buffingk@co.larimer.co.us
Jackie O’Hara
Vice-Chair
Advertising/Public Relations
2nd term ends 12/12
Owner, Jet Marketing
P.O. Box 1802
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Work: 970/218-4797
Fax: 970/224-1047
E-mail: jackie@jetmarketing.net
Jill Burge
Retail or Travel Industry
8th term ends 12/13
VP, New Horizons Travel
300 E. Boardwalk
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Work: 970/ 223-7400
Fax: 970/ 225-0538
E-mail: jillb@travelnewhorizons.com
Ellen Rotunno
Treasurer Lodging Industry – Limited Svc
3rd term ends 12/12
VP of Operations
Best Western University Inn
914 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/ 484-1984
Cell: 970/ 631-0158
Fax: 970/484-1987
E-mail: ellen@bwui.com
Reggie Casselberry
Lodging Full Service
1st term ends 12/12
General Manager Fort Collins Marriott
350 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Work: 970/226-5200
Fax: 970/226-9702
Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau
2012 Board of Directors
2
Dezi Brubaker
CSU Housing & Dining Services
Colorado State University
Director
Office of Conference Services
2nd term ends 12/12
8037 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Work: 970/491-1378
E-mail: Dezarai.brubaker@colostate.edu
Kurt Colicchio
At Large
2nd term ends 12/12
Fort Collins Foxes Baseball Club, Inc.
Owner/General Manager
543 Saturn Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Work: 970/225-9564
Cell: 970/412-7884
E-mail: kurt@fortcollinsfoxes.com
Ben Costello
At Large Sports
1st term ends 12/13
Mountain Whitewater Descents
Director of Fun/River Manager
1329 North Hwy. 287
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/419-0917
Fax: 970/494-0695
Email: ben@raftmwd.com
Diane Gaede, Ph.D.
Cultural Resources Board Liaison
Associate Professor of Recreation & Tourism
& Hospitality
University of Northern Colorado
Gunter Hall
Greeley, CO 80639
Work: 970/351-2688
Cell: 970/231-1419
Fax: 970/351-1255
E-mail: diane.gaede@unco.edu
Debbie Delaney
At Large
2nd term ends 12/13
Regional Retail Services Coordinator
Adams Bank & Trust
7800 S. Highway 287
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Work: 970/667-4308 x2218
Cell: 970/231-9793
E-mail: dkdelaney@abtbank.com
Hamidah Glasgow
Retail Downtown
2nd term ends 12/13
Executive Director
The Center for Fine Art Photography
400 North College Avenue
Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau
2012 Board of Directors
3
Becky Ellis
Limited service Hotel
1st term ends 12/13
General Manager
Cambria Suites
2921 East Harmony Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Work: 970/267-9000
Fax: 970/267-9004
Cell: 505-259-6027
Email: ellis@newvisionhotels.com
Steve Levinger
President Innkeepers Association
3rd Term ends 12/13
Armstrong Hotel
259 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/484-3883
Cell:
Fax: 970/
E-mail: smlevi@msn.com
Beth Flowers
Designated by Chair
1st term ends 12/12
Executive Director
Beet Street
200 West Mountain Ave. Ste. A
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Work: 970/419-8240
Email: bflowers@beetstreet.org
Melissa Moran
Retail Outside Downtown
1st term ends 12/12
Senior General Manager
Front Range Village/Bayer Properties
2720 Council Tree Avenue, Ste. 160
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Work: 970/226-8633
Cell: 970/219-7376
Fax: 970/
E-mail: mmoran@bayerproperties.com
Eric Smith
At Large
1st term ends 12/12
Director of Sales & Marketing
Odell Brewing Company
800 East Lincoln Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Brewery: 970/498-9070
Cell: 970/215-3396
Fax: 970/498-0706
E-mail: smitty@odellbrewing.com
Gary Ozzello
CSU
4th term ends 12/13
Senior Associate Director
External Operations
Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau
2012 Board of Directors
4
Steve Taylor
Food & Beverage Industry
3rd term ends 12/13
Owner, Moot House, Austin’s & Enzio’s
109 North College Avenue Ste 220
Fort Collins, Co 80524
Work: 970/266-2612
Fax: 970/266-2613
Cell: 970/481-5385
E-mail: Steve@hotcornerconcepts.com
Michael Short
DBA Liaison
Executive Director
Downtown Business Association
19 Old Town Square Ste. 230
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/484-6500
Direct: 970/419-4384
Cell: 414/828-9080
E-mail: mike@downtownfortcollins.com
Ned Sickle
Lodging Industry – Full Service
4th erm ends 12/13
GM, Hilton Fort Collins
425 W. Prospect Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Work: 970/482-2626
Fax: 970/493-6265
E-mail: ned.sickle@jqh.com
1
Destination Lodging Tax and Operating Budget Comparisons
Prepared for CADMO (Colorado Association of Destination Marketing Organizations) by Mike Miller,
Colorado State University intern at the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau and Jim Clark,
CADMO Chair. Data was collected in summer, 2011 and updated in January, 2012.
Overview of Data
The survey lists the destination, the lodging tax rates in that destination, and the income to the
Destination Marketing Organization (often referred to as CVBs, Convention and Visitor Bureaus,
or Resort Chambers of Commerce).
The left hand column of tax rates shows the tax rates on a hotel room, including state, county,
city and local taxes as well as any special assessments that apply to a hotel or lodging stay. The
sum is the total tax a guest pays on a hotel room in that destination.
The right hand column shows the amount of lodging tax revenue the destination marketing
organization receives plus other sources of income from private contributions or other sources.
Some of the information is incomplete as the responding DMOs chose not to provide all data.
There are also some destinations that did not respond, and others that will submit information
to CADMO in the near future. Additionally, it should be noted that this information is in relation
to the budgets of the Destination Marketing Organization (DMO), not any commercial entity
such as a ski area.
Destination Lodging Tax rate DMO Budget
Alamosa 2.9% State Tax
2% County Tax
2% City Tax
4% Marketing District
1.9% Lodging Tax
12.8% Total Room Tax
$161,848 Lodging Tax Revenue
$329,199 Marketing District
$491,047 Total Revenue
Aspen 2.9% State Tax
3.6% County Tax
2.1% City Tax
0.4% Roaring Fork Transit Tax
2% Lodging Tax
11% Total Room Tax
$1,400,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$1,400,000 Total Revenue
Avon 2.9% State Tax
1.5% County Tax
4% City Tax
4% Lodging Tax
12.4% Total Room Tax
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Beaver Creek 2.9% State Tax
1.5% County Tax
4% Civic Assessment
2.59% Lodging Tax
10.99% Total Room Tax
Boulder 2.9% State Tax
0.8% County Tax
1.2% RTD
7.5% Lodging Tax
12.4% Total Room Tax
$243,666 Lodging Tax Revenue
$487,334 Food Service
$731,000 Total Revenue
Breckenridge 2.9% State Tax
2.9% County Tax
0.75% City Tax
3.4% Accommodations/Lodging Tax
2.5% Sales Tax
.0125% Housing Tax
11.675 Total Room Tax
$3,411,638 Annual Budget Entire Chamber
Colorado
Springs
2.9% State Tax
1% County Tax
2.5% City Tax
1% Rural Transp. District
2% Lodging Tax
9.4% Total Room Tax
$2,494,177 Lodging Tax Revenue
$34,000 State and County
$235,201 Membership Dues
$337,450 All Other
$3,100,828 Total Revenue
Crested Butte 2.9% State Tax
1.0% County Tax
4.0% City Tax
0.6% Rural Transportation Authority
4.0% Lodging Tax
12.5% Total Room Tax
Gunnison‐ Crested Butte
$900,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$900,000 Total Revenue
Delta County 2.9% State Tax
1.99% Lodging Tax
4.89% Total Room Tax
$60,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$60,000 Total Revenue
Denver 2.9% State Tax
1% Transportation (RTD)
0.1% Cultural Facilities
0.1% Stadium District
10.75% Lodging Tax (VISIT DENVER 2.75%)
14.85% Total Room Tax
$12,604,043 Lodging Tax Revenue
$964,819 Membership Dues
$1,326,679 Publications, Website, Backlits
$1,280,326 Other Contributions (Marketing)
$115,114 Other (Foundation & Interest)
3
Durango 2.9% State Tax
2% County Tax
3% Durango Tax
2% Bayfield Tax
1.9% County Lodgers Tax
2% City Lodgers Tax
Total Room Tax =Durango 9.9%
Bayfield 8.8%
County Unincorporated 6.8%
$743,000 Total City Lodging Tax Revenue
‐$115,00 Transit Subsidy
‐$ 46,300 General Fund
$180,453 Total County Lodgers Tax Revenue
$ 90,000 Pay to Play
Total DATO Revenue $852,000
Estes Park 2.9% State Tax
0.8% County Tax
4% City Tax
2% Lodging Tax
9.7% Total Room Tax
$1,250,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$250,000 Stakeholder (member) Advertising
Revenue
$1,500,000 Total Revenue
Fort Collins 2.9% State Tax
0.8% County Tax
3.85% City Tax
3% Lodging Tax
10.55% Total Room Tax
$514,944 Lodging Tax Revenue
$114,129 Special Lodging District
$19,015 Membership
$7,657 Other Income
$657,896 Total Revenue
Grand
Junction
2.9% State Tax
2% County Tax
2.75% City Tax
3% Lodging Tax
10.65% Total Room Tax
$1,148,921 Lodging Tax Revenue
$613,515 Vendors Fee
$22,055 Co‐op Marketing
$6,144 Interest
$4,774 Miscellaneous
$1,795,409 Total Revenue
Greeley 2.9% State Tax
3.46% City Tax
3% Lodging Tax
9.36% Total Room Tax
$180,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$3,400 Weld County
$1,500 Sales from Greeley Store
$2,000 Co‐Op Advertising
$186,900 Total Revenue
Gunnison 2.9% State Tax
1.0% County Tax
4.0% City Tax
4
Longmont 2.9% State Tax
0.8% County Tax
3.275% City Tax
1% RTD
0.2% Cultural
2% Lodging Tax
10.175% Total Room Tax
$263,041 Lodging Tax Revenue
$263,041 Total Revenue
Mesa Verde 2.9% State Tax
4.05% City Tax
2% Lodging Tax
8.95% Total Room Tax
$125,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$163,600 City Sales Tax
$45,000 County Lodging Tax
$333,600 Total Revenue
Montrose 2.9% State Tax
1.75% County Tax
3.0% City Tax
0.9% Lodging Tax
8.55% Total Room Tax
$119,238 Lodging Tax Revenue
$231,462 Other Revenue (Restaurant)
$350,700 Total Revenue
Mt. Crested
Butte
2.9% State Tax
1.0% County Tax
5.0% City Tax
0.6% Rural Transportation Authority
4.0% Lodging Tax
13.5% Total Room Tax
Gunnison‐ Crested Butte
$900,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$900,000 Total Revenue
Snowmass
Village
2.9% State Tax
3.6% County Tax
1.0% City Tax
2.5% Marketing & Events (Village‐wide tax)
0.4% RFTA (Transit)
2.4% Lodging Tax
12.8% Total Room Tax
$1,200,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$3,200,000 Marketing & Events
$4,400,000 Total Room Tax
Steamboat
Springs
2.9% State Tax
1% County Tax
4.5% City Tax
2% Local Marketing District
1% Lodging Tax
11.4% Total Room Tax
$525,000 City General Fund
$325,000 Membership Dues
$850,000 Total Revenue
1
Fort Collins Convention and
Visitors Bureau
2012 City Council Presentation
Today’s Agenda
• Overview of CVB contract and services
• Benchmarks and productivity
• Priorities and plans for the future
ATTACHMENT 5
2
Background
• Fort Collins instituted a 3% lodging tax
in 1984
• Generated $908,908 this year
• Current allocation 70% FCCVB, 30%
Cultural Resources Board
• FCCVB operates under a contract for
services with the City of Fort Collins
Tourism –Where we are
• Colorado Tourism –Tied for third most
popular visitor destination with Boulder,
Breckenridge, Estes Park
• Seasonality –largest visitation in summer,
lowest in winter
• Summer weekends still weak unless we have
group business
3
Tourism‐ Economic Impact
• Tourism generates 16.6% of the sales
tax revenue in Fort Collins (source:
Tourism in the Fort Collins Economy,
Harvey Cutler, Ph.D., Colorado State
Univ.)
• Tourism sector is leading job growth in
the state in the last 6 months (Source:
Broomfield‐based Business and
Economic Research)
What We Do
• Not‐for‐profit organization
• Represent Fort Collins and help the long‐term
development through a travel and tourism
strategy
• Membership organization
• For visitors, we are an unbiased resource
• Official point of contact for convention and
meeting planners, tour operators and visitors
• Encourage business travelers and visitors
alike to visit local historic, cultural and
recreational sites
• Manage Downtown Information Center &
Colorado Welcome Center
• Marketing/PR
4
CVB Mission Statement
• The CVB leads the city in attracting
visitors to showcase a diverse set of
assets, facilitating the highest quality
visitor experience in order to enhance
the economy and quality of life for
residents.
Who We Are
• 7 member staff
• 24 member board of directors
• 100+ Volunteers
• 200+ Members
5
2011 Revenue Sources
Total: $839,259
2011 Expenditures
Total: $796,750
6
Sales and Marketing Focus
• Group business – Religious, Sports,
Association (best facilities matches)
• Leisure marketing through limited co‐op
advertising, public relations
• Partnerships with Colorado Tourism
Office, Front Range Region (north of
Denver)
• Key messaging: sustainability, unique
downtown, cycling, outdoor recreation,
Cache La Poudre River, breweries, cultural
offerings
Benchmarks by Budget
*Does not include Welcome Center budget
7
Group Business by Market Segment
2011 FCCVB Group Room Nights Booked
8
Fort Collins Productivity
Benchmarked
Fort Collins Vail Breckenridge Boulder
Web unique
Visits 72,635 480,000 334,148 n/a
Advertising
Equivalency $2,074,616 n/a $4,352,202 $6,602,354
Budget $796,750 $1,150,000 $3,411,638 $1,200,000
2011 Visitor Service & Sales
Statistics
• 100,000 ‐ number of Visitor Guides
produced
• 18,148 –Visitor inquiries mailed
• 60+% ‐ percentage of inquiries on
average who visit
• 12,356 –Out of town visitors served at
Downtown Information Center
• About 100,000 –Visitors served at
Colorado Welcome Center
9
PR Value
$2.1 Million Ad Equivalency
Key Partnerships
• Advertising co‐op with Front Range Region ‐
$2500 for over $25,000 in exposure
• Colorado Facebook page: 320,811 followers
• CSU Conference Services –joint trade show
participation
• CSU Athletic Dept. ‐ $10,000 participation,
included in $140,000 in Front Range media
• City of Fort Collins Parks and Rec. Dept. makes
many of the sporting events possible.
• CSU Department of Music, Theatre and Dance
10
Key Partnerships
• Downtown Business Association ‐
$200,000 in gift card sales –top location
• Colorado Tourism Office –our Welcome
Center #1 in volunteer participation
• Chamber of Commerce – Consolidation
of two publications
• Bike Library –check‐ins and publicity
Strengths, Challenges,
Opportunities, Threats
Strengths:
• Strong group business base
• CSU Conference Services re‐engaged in marketing
• Outstanding visitor product
• Experienced staff and diverse board
• Partnerships and alliances
• Good publicity, especially quality of life
publications
• Visitor Center, Welcome Center, volunteer base
• Ability to support a Visitors Guide in a smaller
destination
11
Challenges
• Lack of awareness in Denver
• Very limited exposure to national meetings
market
• Distance from DIA
• Tendency to be overshadowed by Boulder, Denver
and mountain resorts
• Budget and lack of advertising
• Seasonality, especially winter
• Lack of large meeting space (i.e., Embassy Suites)
• Many sporting events too expensive to attract
Opportunities
• Off‐season business
• Museum of Discovery will add an attraction for
kids
• Continue to capitalize on craft brewing trend
• Increased use of PR in lieu of advertising
• USA Pro Cycling Challenge
• International markets, visitors stay twice as
long, spend nearly 4X as much
• Explore other opportunities such as ecotourism
and sustainable tourism
12
Threats
• Nearly every competitor in Colorado has increased
budget by raising lodging tax:
• Boulder –increased tax, budget $1.4 million.
Direct aim at group business with staff and cash
incentives
• Loveland – Instituted lodging tax. Grants to groups
• Estes Park – Instituted Local Marketing District,
about $2.5 million
• Aurora – Instituted lodging tax, going after softball
tourneys with their complex and cash
• Breckenridge –Increased lodging tax to go to $3.4
Million budget
• Our two largest groups, CRU and Jehovah’s
Witnesses being courted by competitors
Plans for the future…..
• Additional Research, study the impact of
public events, destination audit, new
economic impact study
• Results from destination audit to guide new
offerings and packaging opportunities
• Increased emphasis on PR as a key
marketing tool (Katy Schneider is in NY as
we present)
• Group solicitation aligned with key industry
clusters as in Economic Strategic Plan
13
Plans for the future
• Potential partnership opportunities as
Loveland clarifies their tourism
marketing plans
• Media campaigns in Front Range
focusing on events, cultural activities
(resources permitting)
• Capitalize on Museum of Discovery as a
new and unique offering
Questions for Council
• What feedback or questions do you
have regarding CVB services?
• What input does City Council have for
the CVB regarding future efforts and
priorities?
DATE: January 31, 2012
STAFF: Karen Cumbo
Joe Olson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Traffic Safety in Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The recently updated Transportation Master Plan places a strong emphasis on safety for all travelers
using all modes of travel in Fort Collins. Safety performance measures are necessary in order to
determine how well the City is meeting those safety goals. In 2011, the City Traffic Operations
Department produced a “Traffic Safety Summary” (found online at: www.fcgov.com/traffic). The
Summary is intended to be used as a benchmarking tool to track progress on efforts to reduce the
number of crashes as well as crash severity. The information in the Traffic Safety Summary is also
used by City staff to guide efforts to improve safety.
Staff will present crash information and discuss how data is being used to improve traffic safety.
In addition, staff will present information regarding the City’s crosswalk policy which was
developed as part of the Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2011.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does City Council have any questions or feedback regarding the City’s overall approach to
traffic safety?
2. Does City Council have any questions or feedback regarding the City’s crosswalk policies?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2011 Allstate Insurance Company released its seventh annual “Allstate America’s Best Drivers
Report”. Fort Collins topped the list for the second year in a row, as America’s safest drivers.
While this suggests that the safety record in Fort Collins is good relative to other communities, in
2010 there were still more than 700 people injured and four people killed in traffic crashes in Fort
Collins. Deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes continue to be a serious public health
concern. Even crashes that only result in property damage are costly to society and negatively
impact quality of life. In 2010 it was estimated that the overall economic impact from traffic crashes
in Fort Collins was nearly $94 million. The City Transportation Master Plan places a high priority
on safety of our transportation system. City staff is committed to ongoing efforts to make our
system as safe as possible.
January 31, 2012 Page 2
Citywide Crash Trends
The Traffic Operations Department works cooperatively with Police Services to obtain electronic
copies of reports for all traffic crashes on public streets. Quality data is essential to the success of
a traffic safety program. In keeping with the City’s philosophy to be data driven, in 2009, Traffic
Operations staff conducted a comprehensive review of all crash data back through 2007 to ensure
accuracy and consistency prior to entry into a computerized database. This effort involved a review
of over 10,000 records for crashes that occurred between 2007 and 2009. Since that time, ongoing
training and quality control procedures have been established to help maintain good data quality as
Traffic Operations has moved forward. Using this data, a Traffic Safety Summary was produced
in 2011 which identified specific crash trends for the years 2007 – 2010. Highlights include:
• The number of crashes in Fort Collins remained steady, averaging about 3,600 crashes per
year.
• Injury crashes also remained steady, averaging about 750 per year.
• Fatal crashes varied ,with four in 2007, two in 2008, eleven in 2009 and three in 2010. The
eleven fatal crashes in 2009 were the highest number ever recorded in Fort Collins.
However, a review by both staff traffic engineers and police crash investigators did not
identify a consistent, correctable pattern in these fatal crashes. They were not location
specific. Speed, alcohol, drugs, reckless driving, driver inattentiveness, driver inexperience,
motorcycle use, medical conditions, bicycle violations and pedestrian violations were all
noted as contributing factors in the fatal crashes.
• Taking traffic volumes into account, crashes were significantly higher than expected on
weekends in the evening and early morning hours (9:00 p.m. – 4:00 a.m.).
• About 71% of crashes occurred at intersections (43% at signalized intersections, 19% at
unsignalized intersections, 8% at driveway/street intersections and 1% at alley/street
intersections).
• Drivers 15-19 were more than five times as likely to be involved in a crash as expected,
given the number of licensed drivers in that age group. 20 – 24 year old drivers were over
twice as likely to be in a crash, as expected.
• Alcohol related crashes remained steady, averaging about 142 per year.
• Drivers 15-19 were more than three times as likely to be involved in an alcohol related crash
– this despite the fact that they are not of legal drinking age. 20 – 24 year old drivers were
also about three times as likely to be involved in an alcohol related crash.
Types of Crashes
Crashes are classified by type. Six types of crashes accounted for 87% of all incapacitating
injury/fatal crashes in Fort Collins from 2007 - 2010:
January 31, 2012 Page 3
Bicycle Crashes – Crashes involving bicyclists, usually bike/motor vehicle crashes -- 22% of all
serious injury/fatal crashes.
Right Angle Crashes – Two motor vehicles traveling on perpendicular streets; one fails to yield or
passes a traffic control device at an intersection and strikes the other – 16% of all serious injury/fatal
crashes.
Approach Turn Crashes - Two motor vehicles traveling in opposite directions on the same street;
one turns left at an intersection in front of the oncoming vehicle and is struck – 16% of all serious
injury/fatal crashes.
Fixed Object Crashes – Single vehicle runs off the road and strikes a fixed object on the side of the
road or on a median. – 15%
Rear End Crashes – Two motor vehicles traveling in the same direction; leading vehicle struck by
following vehicle – 9% of all serious injury/fatal crashes.
Pedestrian Crashes – Any crash that involves a pedestrian; usually a pedestrian/motor vehicle crash
– 9% of all serious injury/fatal crashes.
High Crash Locations
Through recent national research crash prediction models have been developed that allow analysts
to predict the number of crashes at intersections given the traffic volumes, the intersection geometry
and the type of traffic control, (i.e., traffic signals versus stop signs etc.) If a location has more
crashes than predicted, (more than comparable intersections) it may indicate an issue at the location.
Staff applied these national models calibrated to local conditions at intersections throughout Fort
Collins to identify high crash locations. Locations were ranked by excess crash costs (cost of
crashes above and beyond what the models predicted). Since injury crashes tend to have higher
crash costs associated with them, the ranking method gives more weight to locations with more
injury crashes compared to locations with only “fender benders”. Using 2007 – 2010 crash data, the
top ten high crash intersections are listed below:
STREET 1 STREET 2
Model
Predicted
Crashes/
Year
Model
Predicted
FI Crashes/
Year*
Adjusted
Actual
Crashes/
Year
Adjusted
Actual FI
Crashes/
Year*
Excess
PDO
Crashes/
Year**
Excess FI
Crashes/
Year*
Excess
Crash
Costs/
Year
TIMBERLINE
RD HARMONY RD 17.4 3.8 43.3 7.4 22.3 3.6 $470,696
LEMAY AV HARMONY RD 15.8 3.5 32.0 6.7 13.0 3.2 $359,109
COLLEGE AV
HORSETOOTH
RD 21.3 4.8 36.8 7.6 12.6 2.9 $328,736
January 31, 2012 Page 4
Traffic Safety Improvement Program
Fort Collins utilizes an approach to traffic safety focused on engineering, education, and
enforcement. Below is a discussion of transportation safety activities occurring within each of these
focus areas.
Engineering
Safety is implicitly a part of street maintenance programs such as snow removal, signal operations
and traffic sign/pavement marking policies. Beyond these maintenance activities, three main
engineering strategies are used to address safety concerns:
1. Capital Projects – The prioritized Capital Improvement Projects list shown in the
Transportation Master Plan uses crash history as one of the criteria for prioritization. In
addition, the Engineering Department’s recent Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study
weighted crash history heavily in the prioritization process. Conceptual design of those
projects identified in the intersection prioritization study for further evaluation used detailed
crash analysis to develop improvements targeted at specific crash types and patterns.
Specific upcoming Capital Projects that stemmed from this analysis include:
• Harmony Road widening from Timberline to Boardwalk (design components were
added to address high crash locations at Timberline/Harmony and Lemay/Harmony).
• Shields/Drake and Shields/Davidson – addition of turn lanes at Shields/Drake and
access control improvements on Shields at Davidson.
• College/Horsetooth – addition of dual left turn lanes on College.
Note that these three projects address the top four locations on the high crash list shown
above.
2. Federal Hazard Elimination Funds - Funding is available for specific safety projects
through the Federal Hazard Elimination program. These funds are allocated by the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) through a competitive process. The City has been
successful in the past obtaining some of this funding. For example, $385,000 in hazard
elimination funds are being used for the intersections of College/Hickory and
College/Conifer as part of the North College improvement project. These funds are being
used to increase the length of the left turn lanes between these two closely spaced
intersections and also to add separate, dedicated right turn lanes. Also, $120,000 in hazard
elimination funds were part of the overall funding for the College/Harmony project
completed last year. Staff has made an application to CDOT for Hazard Elimination funding
for the Shields/Drake project to help offset the costs of that planned project.
3. Low cost safety improvements – Minor, inexpensive solutions funded through maintenance
budgets can often be implemented that provide a very high benefit to cost ratio. Again, crash
data was used to inform this approach to traffic safety. Specific examples of recent low cost
safety improvements include:
January 31, 2012 Page 5
• College/Trilby -- Traffic signal retimed to change arrival patterns and thereby reduce
the amount of southbound through traffic arriving when the signal changes from
green to red on College. This was done in response to a high number of approach
turn crashes involving northbound left turners conflicting with southbound through
motorists during the signal change from green to red.
• Mason/Mulberry – Identified as the #1 red light running crash location. Converted
8-inch signal displays to 12-inch displays and worked with the Forestry Department
to do major trimming of overhanging trees.
• College/Monroe – Implemented flashing yellow arrow displays and protected only
(turn on green arrow only) left turn movements during peak volume times in
response to approach turn crashes during those time periods.
• Lady Moon/Harmony – Installed protected only left turn phasing.
• Shields/Plum – Made signal timing adjustments to improve progression and reduce
rear end crash potential.
4. Other safety improvements recently completed in Fort Collins include:
• Lady Moon/Kechter – New traffic signal to address right angle crash problem.
• Laurel Street Road Diet – Intended to address pedestrian safety issues as well as
provide left turn lanes at intersections thereby reducing rear end and approach turn
crash potential.
• Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Projects
N Laporte Avenue Road Diet
N Dynamic speed displays (radar speed signs) in five locations
• School Safety – Ongoing school safety program working in conjunction with the
Poudre School District. Recent activity includes upgrades to school crossing signs
throughout the City and the installation of a new crosswalk on Swallow at Rocky
Mountain High School.
• Shields/Plum – Installation of a “bike box” pavement marking intended to reduce the
risk of “right hook” bike crashes.
Enforcement
Police Services is the lead entity for enforcement. Starting in 2006, Police Services put an increased
emphasis on traffic enforcement. The results from this increased effort are noticeable. The
percentage of 2010 Citizen Survey respondents that rated traffic enforcement good or very good was
63% compared to 49% in 2003.
January 31, 2012 Page 6
The Traffic Unit currently has six officers and three camera radar operators dedicated to a strategy
of high visibility traffic enforcement. The intent of this strategy is two-fold: provide direct
enforcement to violators while also deterring other violators through a high visibility presence.
Two types of photo enforcement are used in Fort Collins: speed enforcement and red light
enforcement. Speed enforcement units are deployed primarily in neighborhood complaint areas and
also in problem areas identified by officers. Data from the camera radar units show that compliance
with neighborhood speed limits has improved from 25% to over 50% since 2004.
Red light cameras are located at Timberline/Harmony and College/Drake. The impact of the red
light cameras is difficult to measure due to other, varying conditions such as signal changes, road
construction etc., that also contribute to crashes. At this time it is not possible to show a specific
change in crashes related to these cameras.
The other area of emphasis for enforcement is in school zones. The Police Traffic Unit makes the
forty eight school zones in the City an enforcement priority. Other patrol officers also supplement
enforcement as call load allows. School zones are selected for enforcement based on calls from
schools, parents and Traffic Operations (who also receives some of the calls from residents).
Six Traffic Unit officers work to enforce traffic laws on the 1,800 miles of streets within the City.
This is a challenging task, but officers are committed to targeting enforcement of contributing
factors in crashes such as speed, alcohol, drugs, reckless driving, inattention and right-of-way
violations in an effort to improve traffic safety.
Education
During development of the Traffic Safety Summary and the evaluation of serious injury/fatal crash
types, numerous driving behaviors were identified as contributing factors in crashes. This
realization was the impetus for declaring October 2011 “Traffic Safety Awareness Month”.
Throughout October and into November Traffic Operations staff made presentations to community
groups and employee groups. In addition, a “Studio 14” program focusing on traffic safety was
produced and aired. Also, the first in what is intended to be a series of “commercials” was
developed that demonstrates the most common bicycle crash and a way to avoid it. Lastly, traffic
safety web pages that include a variety of safety information from the Traffic Safety Summary were
added to the Traffic Operations website.
In addition to Traffic Safety Month, other traffic safety educational efforts are ongoing. Examples
include:
• The Bicycle Safety Education Plan adopted by City Council in 2011.
• The City Pedestrian Plan adopted as part of the Transportation Master Plan in 2011.
• Neighborhood traffic education programs including yard signs, radar speed displays and
public service radio messages conveying traffic safety messages.
January 31, 2012 Page 7
• The Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) utilizes Federal grant money in conjunction
with local funds to develop safety education and encouragement programs for school
children.
Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy
As noted previously, pedestrian crashes account for 9% of the serious injury/fatal crashes in Fort
Collins and are one of six crash types that the City is focused on reducing. Pedestrian crossing
improvements are part of that focus.
According to City ordinance and State law, a crosswalk exists (whether marked or not) as the
extension of the sidewalk through every intersection. Thus, it is not necessary to have markings at
every street crossing in order to create a legal crosswalk where pedestrians have the right of way.
In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a landmark study on the “Safety
Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.” A total of 1,000
marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matched unmarked crosswalk sites in 30 cities across the United
States were analyzed. The study results revealed that under no condition was the presence of a
marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location associated with a significantly lower pedestrian
crash rate compared to an unmarked crosswalk. On multilane roads with traffic volumes greater
than 12,000 vehicles per day, marked crosswalks were associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate
compared to unmarked crosswalks.
In 2006, the Transportation Research Board, a division of the National Research Council published
a report titled “Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings”. This report used
recommendations from the 2005 FHWA study along with other research to create the current state
of the art for the use of pedestrian crossing treatments.
In 2011, the City adopted an updated Pedestrian Plan. The Pedestrian Plan includes a detailed
discussion of the City’s current pedestrian crossing policy that is based on this prior national
research.
As per the Pedestrian Plan, marked crosswalks are installed at all signalized locations where
pedestrian signals are present. In addition, marked crosswalks may be installed at locations
controlled by stop signs if there is a documented need (school crossings etc.) Pedestrian crossing
treatments at uncontrolled locations (i.e., no stop signs or traffic signals) are broken down into four
categories that escalate the treatment depending on conditions:
• No improvement.
• Level 1 - Marked crosswalks and standard pedestrian crossing warning signs.
• Level 2 - Marked crosswalks with enhanced crossing treatments such as additional signage,
pedestrian activated warning beacons (yellow lights), pedestrian refuge islands etc.
• Level 3 - Marked crosswalks with traffic signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons (devices that
control traffic using a red signal indication).
January 31, 2012 Page 8
An assessment to determine the proper crossing treatment includes an evaluation of pedestrian
volumes, pedestrian delay, traffic volumes, traffic speed and available sight distance.
Consistency in application of pedestrian crossing treatments is important to ensure proper response
by both motorists and pedestrians. In the past we have not always been consistent in our approach
to pedestrian crossing treatments. Until recently, the only devices approved for use were marked
crosswalks or traffic signals. At the same time, there was a real need for crossing treatments that fall
somewhere between a standard marked crosswalk and a traffic signal (what is now called Level 2
crossings). Until recently, there was not much guidance nationally for application of pedestrian
crossing treatments. Communities were mostly left on their own to experiment with different
devices to try to meet the need. As a result, there has been a variety of different devices
implemented throughout the country.
Staff’s goal moving forward is to apply a consistent approach to crossing treatments based on the
level of protection they require. There is still flexibility, particularly with level 2 devices, but it is
staff’s intent to provide more consistent treatments in the future.
Summary
Fort Collins continues to be recognized nationally for its safe drivers. We are fortunate to have so
many conscientious drivers who help keep city streets safe. There is still room for improvement.
Through engineering, operations and maintenance, education, and enforcement, the City continues
to strive for improved safety. These efforts involve many departments in the City, including Traffic
Operations, Police, Engineering, Streets, Transportation Planning, and Forestry. Using a data driven
approach allows staff to coordinate efforts to target specific crash patterns and problem locations.
Moving forward, staff will continue to monitor crashes as a way of benchmarking the effectiveness
of the various safety improvement strategies being applied.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
1
1
Traffic Safety Summary
Presentation for:
City Council
January 31, 2012
2
Total Crashes, 2007 – 2011
3810
804
3 4
3738 3462 3580 3561
820 728 707 743
4
2
11
1
10
100
1000
10000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Injury Fatal
Number of Crashes
ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
Crashes by Time of Day, Saturday
62
45 43
20 12 11
14
58
92
111
142 139
131 137
130
102
113
61
50
96
63 61
52
28
0
80
160
12:00 AM
3:00 AM
6:00 AM
9:00 AM
12:00 PM
3:00 PM
6:00 PM
9:00 PM
Day
Crashes
0%
3%
6%
9%
Crashes % of Daily Traffic
4
Crashes by Age
2607
443 387
878
1199
1327
2237 2027
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
0%
5%
10%
15%
3
5
47
1
142 141 148 136
53 46 56
1
4
1
10
100
1000
10000
2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Injury Fatal
DUI Crashes
6
DUI Crashes by Age
186
4 5
34
59
65
124
81
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Number of Crashes Percentage of Licensed Drivers
4
7
Types of Crashes
8
Rear End
9%
Right Angle
16%
Parking
5%
Fixed Object
15%
Approach Turn
16%
Bike
22%
Head On
2%
Pedestrian
9%
Other
6%
Severe Injury/Fatal Crashes by Type
5
9
Bicycle Crashes
• 83% of bicycle crashes occurred at intersections. Most
involved right of way violations by motorists and/or
bicyclists
• 36% of bike crashes involved bikes riding
against traffic (usually from the sidewalk)
conflicting with cross street vehicles
10
Bicycle Crashes
Bicyclists:
• Don’t ride against traffic
• Avoid riding on the sidewalk. If necessary slow to walking
speed to cross intersections, driveways, alleys etc.
Motorists:
• Check to the right even when turning right
6
11
Bicycle Crashes
Motorists: Check for bicyclists then move as far right
as possible (into the bike/parking lane is ok) when
making a right turn.
Bicyclists: Don’t pull up to the right of a motorist that may be
turning right. Take the lane behind the motorist.
“Right Hook”
12
Right Angle Crashes
•• 65% of Right Angle
Crashes Occurred at
Unsignalized
Intersections
••28% 28% of Right Angle
Crashes Involved Red
Light Running at Signals
7
13
Right Angle Crashes
Most Right Angle accidents occur after stopping at a
STOP sign
– Sight Distance Obstructions
– Heavy Cross Street Traffic
– Right Turn Vehicles Shadowing Through Vehicles
Red Light Running
– Inattention
– Dilemma Zone
14
8
15
Approach Turn Crashes
•• 75% of Approach Turn
Accidents Occurred at
Signalized Intersections
••Confusion Confusion During the
Yellow Light is a Major
Contributing Factor
16
Approach Turn Crashes
9
17
Pedestrian Crashes
• Motorists Failing to Yield at Intersections Account for 46%
of Pedestrian Crashes
18
Pedestrian Crashes
• Pedestrians Darting Out or Failing to Yield
Account for 69% of Severe Injury/Fatal
Crashes
•• 81% of Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes
Occur at Night
10
19
Traffic Safety Improvement Program
20
Traffic Safety Improvement Program
October 2011 – “Traffic Safety Awareness Month”
•Presentations to Community Groups
•Website Describing Crash Types and Tips
How to Avoid Them
•Studio 14
•YouTube Video
•Ongoing
11
21
Safety Improvements
Mason/Mulberry Eastbound “Before”
22
Safety Improvements
Mason/Mulberry Eastbound “After”
12
23
• Low Cost Safety Improvements
College/Trilby Platoon Flow “Before”
Southbound Vehicles Arriving on Yellow/Red
Safety Improvements
Time
Distance
Southbound Vehicles
Arriving on Yellow/Red
Red lines represent
Southbound Vehicle Trajectories
24
• Low Cost Safety Improvements
College/Trilby Platoon Flow “After” to
Reduce Southbound Arrivals on Yellow/Red and Thereby
Approach Turn Crash Potential
Safety Improvements
Time
Distance
Fewer Southbound
Vehicles Arriving on
Yellow/Red
Red lines represent
Southbound Vehicle Trajectories
13
25
Safety Improvements
Flashing Yellow Arrow
•College/Monroe
•Allows Protected Only Left
Turn Mode by Time of Day
26
Safety Improvements
Lady Moon/Kechter – Traffic Signal
14
27
Safety Improvements
Traffic Safety Data Informed
The Bike Safety Education
Plan
28
Safety Improvements
Dotted Bike Lane Line
To Encourage Motorists
To Move Right and Avoid
“Right Hook” Bike Crash
Potential
15
29
Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study
– Harmony Road – Widening to six lanes from Timberline
to Boardwalk
– Shields/Drake – Turn Lanes
– Shields/Davidson – Access Control
– College/Horsetooth – Turn Lanes
Capital Projects
30
Pedestrian Crossings
16
31
Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian Plan Adopted in February 2011
•Includes Pedestrian Crossing Policy
•Based on Latest Research on Pedestrian
Crossing Safety
•Where crossings are needed, three levels of
improvement are considered based on conditions
•Pedestrian Volumes
•Pedetrian Delay
•Traffic Volume and Speed
•Sight Distance
32
Pedestrian Crossings – Level 1
17
33
Pedestrian Crossings – Level 2
Mountain/Remington
Laurel/Sherwood
34
Pedestrian Crossings – Level 3
18
35
Pedestrian Crossings – Level 3
20%
25%
30%
Number of Crashes Percentage of Licensed Drivers
SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 17.3 3.8 28.7 6.5 8.8 2.7 $278,913
COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 13.7 2.9 21.2 5.8 4.6 2.9 $255,318
LEMAY AV MULBERRY ST 14.6 3.2 26.3 4.4 10.4 1.3 $187,781
COLLEGE AV MONROE DR 17.8 3.9 28.7 5.2 9.7 1.2 $179,793
COLLEGE AV LAUREL ST 11.2 2.6 20.9 4.0 8.3 1.4 $179,777
SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 14.9 3.3 22.8 4.8 6.4 1.5 $170,312
COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 16.5 3.6 28.8 4.3 11.6 0.7 $159,605
* FI = Fatal/Injury Crashes
** PDO = Property Damage Only Crashes
Vail 2.9% State Tax
1.5% County Tax
4% City Tax
1.4% Lodging Tax
9.8% Total Room Tax
$120,000 Lodging Commission‐ Group
$200,000 Lodging Commission‐ Leisure
$435,000 Project Based Revenues
$335,000 Membership
$1,090,000 Total Revenue
0.35% Rural Transportation Authority
4.0% Lodging Tax
12.25% Total Room Tax
Gunnison‐ Crested Butte
$900,000 Lodging Tax Revenue
$900,000 Total Revenue
$16,290,981 Total Revenue
311A Mcgraw Athletic Center
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/491-0628
Cell: 970/222-3361
E-mail: Gary.Ozzello@ColoState.EDU
Wayne Sundberg
Cultural/Heritage Tourism
8th term ends 12/13
Owner, SundDay Research Associates
1108 Lynnwood Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Work/Home: 970/493-3749
Cell: 970/ 690-4520
E-mail: sunddayres@msn.com
Scott Romano
Special Lodging District Seat
2nd term ends 12/12
GM, Super 8
409 Centro Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/493-7701
Fax: 970/530-0557
E-mail: romansco1359@gmail.com
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Work: 970/224-1010
Cell: 303/489-8693
Fax: 970/224-1024
E-mail: hamidah@c4fap.org
Kelly DiMartino
City of Fort Collins Liaison
Employee & Communication
Services Director
Office of the City Manager
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Work: 970/416-2028
Cell: 970/217-3293
Fax: 970/224-6107
E-mail: kdimartino@fcgov.com
Bob Herrfeldt
The Ranch
3rd term ends 12/12
Director, The Ranch
5290 Arena Circle Suite 100
Loveland, CO 80538
Work: 970/619-4010
Fax: 970/619-4001
Cell: 970/566-3771
E-mail: bherrfeldt@larimer.org
Email: reggie.casselberry@dimdev.com
Truman Solverud
Immediate Past Chair
Food & Beverage Industry
3rd Term ends 12/12
Truman’s Coffeehouse
2815 E. Harmony Rd. Ste. 102
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Work: 970/ 295-4447
Cell: 970/213-1000
E-mail: solverud38@msn.com
Danielle Clark
At Large
1st term ends 12/13
Communicaitons Director
Poudre School District
Johannsen Support Svcs. Ctr.
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Work: 970/490-3427
Fax: 970/490-3005
Cell: 970/567-1579
Email: daclark@psdschools.org
ATTACHMENT 3
Whole Building Approach.
0 4
4.5
Utilizes alternative dispute resolution processes, e.g. mediation,
to engage surrounding neighbors in the project design process 0 4