HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/19/2018 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAYDATE:
STAFF:
June 19, 2018
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations within
the Land Use Code applicable to larger parcels being developed in multiple phases.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed Land Use Code amendment?
2. Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration at the upcoming adoption hearing?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Goals of the PUD Land Use Code Changes
Staff initiated the creation of a PUD Overlay with the following goals:
1. Add flexibility in site design not available in traditional procedures in return for the provision of significant
public benefits
2. Allows for land use flexibility beyond the underlying zone district use restrictions
3. Ability for extending vested property rights to land use and density, and modifications to development
standards
4. Promotes innovative, high-quality community design
5. Forwards adopted City plans, policies and standards
6. Addresses the unique challenges with large developments constructed in phases
Summary of Proposed Changes
The following Land Use Code changes are proposed. The full set of changes are included in Attachment 1.
LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change
1.3.1 -
Establishment of
Zone Districts
Establishes zone districts Adds Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
1.3.4 - Addition of
Permitted Uses
Describes the purpose of
the Addition of Permitted
use process
Provides that an APU process may be used to
add uses to the zone district underlying the PUD
Overlay
1.4.9 - Rules of
Construction for
Text
Describes Rules of
Construction in the Land
Use Code
Strikes reference to the Planned Development
Overlay District (PDOD).
2.15(C)(2) Describes Review
Procedures
Adds an additional neighborhood meeting for PUD
master plans like the existing APU procedures.
June 19, 2018 Page 2
2.2.10 - Step 10:
Amendments and
Changes of Use
Describes the minor
amendment and change of
use process pertaining to
OPD, PDP’s and any site-
specific development plan
Includes the PUD Master Plan in the list of
amendable plan types.
2.2.11 - Step 11:
Lapse
Defines the time limits for
development plan
applications
Adds provisions for the vesting of property rights
with respect to uses, densities, and development
and engineering standards for which variances
have been granted. Defines the duration and
frequency of vested rights extension requests
associated with a PUD Master Plan
2.4.2 - Project
Development Plan
Review Procedures
Defines steps in the Project
Development Plan (PDP)
review process
Expands the application of development
standards to the PUD Overlay and PUD Master
Plan.
2.15 - Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
Overlay Review
Procedure
Presently occupied by
former Planned
Development Overlay
District (PDOD)
Existing section is repealed and a new procedure
for development occurring within a PUD Overlay
is created that defines applicable steps in the
development review process.
4.29 - Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
District
Presently occupied by
former Planned
Development Overlay
District (PDOD)
Creates the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan
standards for uses, modification to densities and
development standards, vesting of PUD Master
Plans, and Engineering variances.
5.1.2 - Definitions Adds definitions for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Master Plan.
*LCUASS Chapter 1, Section 1.9.4.A.a will be amended in a separate action that allows LCUASS variances to be
processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
June 19, 2018 Page 3
vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering
standards. The PUD Master Plan does not expire, but can be terminated or amended through processes specified
in the Land Use Code.
Major components of a PUD Master Plan application include the following:
• list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested
• overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses
• transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation
• location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for
preservation
• architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing
architectural design intent
• phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase
• list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan
The decisionmaker for the PUD Master Plan action is dictated by the size of the development. For parcels 640
acres or greater, the City Council makes the decision whether to approve the Master Plan, while parcels of a
lesser size are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The 640 acre threshold for City Council review is
consistent with the existing ‘legislative’ zoning or rezoning process per Section 2.9.4(H)(1).
Master Plan Followed by Project Development Plans (PDP’s)
After the PUD Master Plan has been approved, each subsequent phase would be reviewed under the existing
Project Development Plan (PDP) and Final Plan processes. PDP applications would be evaluated for consistency
and substantial conformance with the PUD Master Plan. In cases where land uses, densities, and modifications
to Article 3 design standards and engineering standards, such as the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS,) have been approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, the granted modifications/variances
correspond to the PDP approval and no additional modifications or variances would be required.
Minimum Size Threshold for PUD’s
Under the proposed ordinance, parcels must be a minimum of 20 acres in size to qualify for a PUD Overlay, with
the intention that this shift in regulations only apply to larger, multi-phased development. Based on staff’s
property analysis, a total of eighty-eight (88) properties would be eligible, along with a handful of additional
properties that could potentially be consolidated to reach the minimum size threshold.
Given the wide range of minimum threshold acreages, staff conducted a thorough analysis of potentially eligible
properties (Attachment 2) to arrive at the 20-acre minimum. Vacant or underdeveloped properties with lot area
between 20 and 50 acres in size were evaluated. As can be seen through the data below, the size and
distribution of eligible properties has an almost linear progression based on their size. Parcels of 50 acres or
more are concentrated in the Mountain Vista Subarea, in the east and southeast areas of the community, and
south of East Prospect Road, with one lone parcel north of Highway 287 west of Shields Street. Reducing the
eligible parcel size to 20 acres expands the opportunity for PUD’s to be created in the northwest subarea, to the
southeast, southwest, and parcels at the perimeter of the East Mulberry Corridor.
June 19, 2018 Page 4
A twenty (20) acre minimum size is also consistent with historic parcel sizes and other acreage thresholds within
the Land Use Code. Twenty-acre parcels are often the result of the 640-acre (1 square mile) section grid, which
is frequently further subdivided into 160-acre quarter sections, 40-acre quarter-quarter sections and splits of those
40-acre parcels into 20 acres. Further, the mix of housing standards within the LMN zone district trigger a
minimum of three (3) housing types at the 20-acre threshold.
Neighborhood Meeting Requirements
Development procedures for the PUD process match the 12 steps identified in Article 2, ranging from the initial
pre-application meeting (conceptual or preliminary design review) through the appeal process except for the
neighborhood meeting step. This noteworthy procedural difference includes a mandatory second neighborhood
meeting that matches requirements for the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process. Under the proposed
ordinance, applicants would be required to conduct two neighborhood meetings: the first held meeting prior to the
application submittal, and then a follow-up neighborhood meeting after the initial round of development review has
been completed. This second meeting affords potentially affected property owners the ability to comment on
revised development concepts early enough in the process to positively contribute to the project’s design.
Review of Public Benefits
Since it is virtually impossible to anticipate and quantify the range of all impacts associated with a PUD
development application, staff has been hesitant to propose specific PUD performance metrics, e.g.-a “points
system”. Alternatively, the proposed draft PUD ordinance includes specific objectives that test the project’s public
benefits against more conventional development. The decisionmaker would use the following objectives as the
basis of its action on a PUD Master Plan:
1. The project must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the
application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable:
a) Diversification in the use of land;
b) Innovation in development;
c) More efficient use of land and energy;
d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development;
e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and
f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies.
June 19, 2018 Page 5
2. Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage
of site characteristics.
3. Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area.
4. Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts.
Community Engagement
Feedback was gathered on the proposed code changes through direct correspondence with members of the Fort
Collins development community. Multiple comments were received, some through email and telephone and two
were through written summaries (Attachment 3).
Concerns raised during the public process principally centered on three categories:
1. The minimum parcel size threshold
2. Lack of definition of “significant public benefit”
3. Term of vested property rights
With respect to the parcel size, all but one of the commenters voiced opposition to the 50-acre minimum parcel
threshold and requested that a lesser minimum be considered. Suggested alternative size thresholds varied from
no minimum size to 25 acres and to several points in between. The common concern was that the community’s
supply of parcels meeting the threshold is so small that few can take advantage of the flexibility afforded through
the PUD process.
An underlying principle of the PUD ordinance is a balance between granted regulatory flexibility and amenities
with improvements that benefit the public. Some commenters have stated the “significant public benefit” criterion
is too broad and should either be more narrowly defined or eliminated in its entirety.
The proposed term of vested property rights for PUD Master Plans has been drafted to be consistent with rights
granted under other entitlement processes. The draft standards provide for a three (3) year vesting period, with
two (2) additional one (1) year extensions granted by the Director, and with additional one (1) year extensions
available through action of the original decisionmaker (City Council or Planning and Zoning Board depending
upon the project scale). Concern has been raised by some that the vesting period should be lengthened given
the scale and complexity often found in PUD’s.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the draft PUD ordinance at its May 31, 2018 hearing (Attachment 4)
and elected to continue the item. While the Planning and Zoning Board expressed general support for the PUD
concept and draft code language, additional information was requested for presentation at the Planning and
Zoning Board Work Session scheduled for June 19 and the subsequent public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PUD Land Use Code Amendments (PDF)
2. Buildable Land for PUDs (PDF)
3. PUD Code Public Comments (PDF)
4. Planning and Zoning Minutes, May 31, 2018 (PDF)
5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.3.1 - Establishment of Zone Districts
In order to carry out the purposes of this Code, the City is hereby divided into the following zone districts:
Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
Urban Estate District (U-E)
Residential Foothills District (R-F)
Low Density Residential District (R-L)
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N)
Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B)
High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N)
Transition District (T)
Public Open Lands District (P-O-L)
River Conservation District (R-C)
Downtown District (D)
River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R)
Community Commercial District (C-C)
Service Commercial District (C-S)
Community Commercial - Poudre River District (C-C-R)
General Commercial District (C-G)
Community Commercial - North College District (C-C-N)
Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C)
Limited Commercial District (C-L)
Harmony Corridor District (H-C)
Employment District (E)
Industrial District (I)
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD)Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD)
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses
(A) Purpose Statement. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the
approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel within a zone district that
otherwise would not permit such a use. Under this process, an applicant may submit a plan that does
not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level
of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is
intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels
with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process allows for consideration
of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property. For residential neighborhoods, land use flexibility shall be balanced
with the existing residential character. Projects are expected to continue to meet the objectives of
any applicable sub-area plan and City Plan. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration
among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City Staff. The Addition of Permitted Use
process may add a use or uses to the zone district underlying a PUD Overlay but may not be utilized
to add a use or uses to any PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district.
(B) Applicability. This Section is applicable only under the following circumstances:
(1) Where the proposed use is not listed as a permitted use in any zone district, does not fall within
any existing use classification and is proposed as being appropriate to be added to the
permitted uses in the zone district. If approved under this Section, such use shall be considered
for inclusion into the zone district pursuant to Division 2.9; or
(2) Where the proposed use is listed as a permitted use in one (1) or more zone district(s) and is
proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development
plan.
(C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to
addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City
Council respectively:
(1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development
plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application"
for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in
subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for
uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not
apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the
Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The
Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms
to all of the following criteria:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted
uses in the zone district to which it is added.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative
impact on the use of nearby properties.
(d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor,
glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or
attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public
facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics,
or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the
other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is
added and with any uses permitted in a PUD Overlay overlaying such zone district.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be
subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information
derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have
any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place
prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place
after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round
of staff review.
(h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City
Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project not
located, in whole or in part, in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply
for approval of an addition of permitted use for uses described in subsection (B)(2) to be
determined by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board may add a
proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8)
criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be
in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not
specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located.
The addition of a permitted use by the Board shall be specific to the proposed project and shall
not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D) below.
(3) City Council Approval. In conjunction with a primary application for a project located, in whole or
in part, in a zone district listed in subsection (G), any application for the approval of an addition
of permitted use shall be determined by the City Council after a Planning and Zoning Board
recommendation on the addition of permitted use. The Planning and Zoning Board shall remain
the decision maker on the primary application.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use
described in subsection (B)(1) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use
conforms to all of the eight criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). The Planning and Zoning
Board may recommend to the City Council that a proposed use described in subsection
(B)(2) be added if the Board specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight
(8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3)
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and
(4) is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed
site is located. The Planning and Zoning Board shall consider only the requirements set
forth in this subsection in making a recommendation on the addition of permitted use and
shall follow the notice and hearing requirements that are established for zonings and
rezonings of areas of no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in
Section 2.9.4 of this Land Use Code.
(b) In considering the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and in determining
whether a proposed use should be added, the City Council shall follow the notice
requirements for Council action that are established for zonings and rezonings of areas of
no more than six hundred forty (640) acres in size as set forth in Section 2.9.4 of this Land
Use Code and shall follow the applicable hearing procedures established by the City
Council by resolution for such hearings. In determining the addition of permitted use, the
City Council shall consider only the requirements set forth in subsection (c) below.
(c) In deciding the addition of permitted use application for uses described in subsection
(B)(1), the City Council, after considering the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation,
may add a proposed use if the Council specifically finds that such use conforms to all of
the eight (8) criteria listed in subsection (C)(1). In deciding the addition of permitted use
application for uses described in subsection (B)(2), the City Council, after considering the
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, may add a proposed use if the Council
specifically finds that such use: (1) conforms to all of the eight (8) criteria listed in
subsection (C)(1); (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; and (4) is not
specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is
located. The City Council's action on the addition of permitted use shall be by ordinance.
The addition of a permitted use by City Council shall be specific to the proposed project
and shall not be considered for a text amendment under subsection (D). The City Council's
decision on the addition of permitted use shall not be appealable and, if applicable, shall be
subject only to a vested rights and takings determination pursuant to Land Use Code
Article 2, Division 2.13.
(d) If the addition of permitted use is denied, any primary application that has been approved
by the Planning and Zoning Board contingent upon the City Council's approval of an
additional permitted use under this Section shall be automatically terminated and made null
if such condition is not met; and any pending appeal of such conditional approval shall also
be automatically terminated if such condition is not met, whereupon the appellant shall be
promptly refunded any appeal fee that was paid to the City.
(D) Codification of New Use. When any use described in subsection (B)(1) has been added by the
Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with subsection (C)(1) above,
such use shall be promptly considered for an amendment to the text of this Code under Division 2.9.
If the text amendment is approved, such use shall be deemed to be permanently listed in the
appropriate permitted use list of the appropriate zone district and shall be added to the published text
of this Code, at the first convenient opportunity, by ordinance of City Council pursuant to Division 2.9.
If the text amendment is not approved, such use shall not be deemed permanently listed in the zone
district, except that such use shall continue to be deemed a permitted use in such zone district for
only the development proposal for which it was originally approved under subsection (C)(1) above.
(E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in
accordance with this Section, the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any
zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in
subsection (G), may impose such conditions and requirements, including, but not limited to,
conditions related to the location, size and design on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1)
accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its
adopted components and associated sub-area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and
impacts upon the public and neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses.
(F) Changes to Approved Addition of Permitted Use. Approvals under this Section are specific to the
subject addition of permitted use application. Any changes to the use or to its location, size and
design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact
upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use.
(G) Zones Subject to City Council Addition of Permitted Use Review. The City Council shall make all
final determinations regarding any addition of permitted use under subsection (C)(3) with respect to a
project located, in whole or in part, in any of the following zone districts:
1. Rural Lands District (R-U-L)
2. Urban Estate District (U-E)
3. Residential Foothills District (R-F)
4. Low Density Residential District (R-L)
5. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N)
6. Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L)
7. Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (N-C-M)
8. Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B).
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text
In construing the language of this Land Use Code, the rules set forth in Section 1-2 of the City Code and
this Section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of
the Council as expressed in this Land Use Code or in City Plan Principles and Policies. The rules of
construction and definitions set forth herein shall not be applied to any express provisions excluding such
construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. In the event of a
conflict between these rules of construction and the rules of construction established in Section 1-2 of the
City Code, these rules shall control.
(A) Generally. All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in the Land Use Code shall
be so construed in order that the intent and meaning of the Council may be fully carried out.
Terms used in the Land Use Code, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall have the
meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms.
In the interpretation and application of any provision of the Land Use Code, such provision
shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of the Land
Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of
the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be
deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less
stringent.
The definitions are intended to be generally construed within the context of the Land Use
Code, except as shall be specified by the term itself within a given context for a select
section of the Land Use Code.
(B) Text. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of the Land Use Code
and any figure or diagram, the text shall control.
(C) Conjunctive/Disjunctive. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, the following words
shall be interpreted as follows:
(1) "And" indicates that all connected words or provisions apply.
(2) "Or" or "and/or" indicates that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in
any combination.
(3) "Either...or" indicates that the connected words or provisions apply singly but not in
combination.
(D) Day. The word "day" shall mean a calendar day.
(E) Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the Director or some other
City officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed
as authorizing the Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize
professional-level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms of the
provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development applications eligible for
Type 1 review, in addition to or in substitution for delegation to subordinates as above
authorized, the Director may engage the services of an attorney with experience in land use
matters.
(F) Exhibits. Any exhibit to this Code which is taken from another regulation of the City shall be
automatically amended upon the making of any amendment to the document of origin, and the
Director shall promptly replace such exhibit with the new amended exhibit.
(G) Include. The word "including," "includes," "such as," "additional" or "supplemental" is illustrative
and is not intended as an exhaustive listing, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(H) Headings. Article, division, section and subsection headings contained in the Land Use Code
are for convenience only and do not govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope,
meaning or intent of any portion of the Land Use Code.
(I) Shall, May, Should. The word "shall," "will" or "must" is mandatory; "may" is permissive,
"should" is suggestive but not mandatory.
(J) Week. The word "week" shall be construed to mean seven (7) calendar days.
(K) Written or In Writing. The term "written" or "in writing" shall be construed to include any
representation of words, letters or figures whether by printing or other form or method of writing.
(L) Year. The word "year" shall mean a calendar year, unless a fiscal year is indicated or three
hundred sixty-five (365) calendar days is indicated.
(M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References . In applying the provisions of
Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Code, the term "project development plan" shall be
deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term "final plan" shall be deemed to
mean a complete development plan. This Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with
respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use
(A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development
plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan,
any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of
use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2),
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be
authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, sSuch minor
amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development
plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably
feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the
PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such
standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and are consistent with the
existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of
the following:
(1) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which
was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any
change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a
use-by-right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the
original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the
change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular
request for change or change of use:
(a) Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units,
except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to
a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling
units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less;
(b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential
land use or structure that does not change the character of the project;
(c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the
requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project;
(d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development;
(e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking
lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the
approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan;
(f) Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the
character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the
requirements of this Code; and
(g) In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being brought into
compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to
below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards
contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this
Code.
(2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which
was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or
as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law) or City Council review
of a PUD Overlay, or any change of use of any property that was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following
criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use:
(a) Results in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of
dwelling units;
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential
land use or structure that does not change the character of the project;
(c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the
requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project;
(d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development; and
(e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking
lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the
approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan.
(3) Waiver of Development Standards for Changes of Use.
(a) Applicability. The procedure and standards contained in this Section shall apply only to
changes of use reviewed pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) of this Code.
(b) Purpose. In order for a change of use to be granted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), the
change of use must result in the site being brought into compliance with all applicable
general development and zone district standards to the extent reasonably feasible. The
purpose of this Section is to allow certain changes of use that do not comply with all
general development standards to the extent reasonably feasible to be granted pursuant to
Section 2.2.10(A) in order to:
1. Foster the economic feasibility for the use, maintenance and improvement of certain
legally constructed buildings and sites which do not comply with certain Land Use
Code General Development Standards provided that:
a. Existing blight conditions have been ameliorated; and
b. Public and private improvements are made that address essential health and life
safety issues that are present on-site.
2. Encourage the eventual upgrading of nonconforming buildings, uses and sites.
(c) Review by Director. As part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A) for a
proposed change of use, the Director may waive, or waive with conditions, any of the
development standards set forth in subsection (d) below. In order for the Director to waive,
or waive with conditions, any such development standard, the Director must find that such
waiver or waiver with conditions would not be detrimental to the public good and that each
of the following is satisfied:
1. The site for which the waiver or waiver with conditions is granted satisfies the policies
of the applicable Council adopted subarea, corridor or neighborhood plan within which
the site is located;
2. The proposed use will function without significant adverse impact upon adjacent
properties and the district within which it is located in consideration of the waiver or
waiver with conditions;
3. Existing blight conditions on the site are addressed through site clean-up,
maintenance, screening, landscaping or some combination thereof; and
4. The site design addresses essential health and public safety concerns found on the
site.
(d) Eligible Development Standards. The Director may grant a waiver or waiver with
conditions for the following general development standards:
1. Sections 3.2.1(4), (5) and (6) related to Parking Lot Perimeter and Interior
Landscaping, and connecting walkways.
2. Section 3.2.2(M) Landscaping Coverage.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
3. Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting, except compliance with minimum footcandle levels
described in 3.2.4(C).
4. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosure design.
5. Section 3.3.5 Engineering Design standards related to water quality standard,
including Low Impact Development.
(4) Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change
of use to the decision maker who approved the development plan proposed to be
amendedAdministrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor
amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of
the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as
required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in
Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located.
The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans
approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for
the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so
referred, the decision maker’s decisionof the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board
shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under
Division 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or 2.15 as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. City
Council approval of a minor amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution.
(5) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions
or denial of, a change of use, or a minor amendment of any approved development plan, site
specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property, shall be to the
Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the
final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the
appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final
decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A).
(1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall
Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, or any site specific
development plan, and changes of use that are not determined by the Director to be minor
amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above,
shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or
site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land
prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses
proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for
the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply
with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development
plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and
processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which
amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site
specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures
established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. City Council approval of
a major amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. Any partial or total
abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this
Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the
adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a
Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to
the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the
land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the
zone district in which the land is located.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(2) Appeals. Appeals of decisions for approval, approval with conditions or denial of major
amendments, or abandonment, of any approved development plan or site specific development
plan shall be filed and processed in accordance with Section 2.2.12 (Step 12).
(C) Additional Criteria. In addition to the criteria established in (A) and (B) above, the criteria established
in subsection 2.1.4(C) shall guide the decision maker in determining whether to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application for partial or total abandonment.
(D) Parkway Landscaping Amendments. Amendments to parkway landscaping in any approved
development plan may be approved, approved with conditions or denied administratively by the
Director. No public hearing need be held on an application for a parkway landscaping amendment.
Such amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so
amended, continues to comply with the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards, Appendix C, Section 6.1
in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Appeals of the decision of the Director
regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of parkway landscaping amendments of
any approved development plan shall be made in accordance with paragraph (A)(4) of this Section.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse
(A) Application Submittals. An application submitted to the City for the review and approval of a
development plan must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the
applicant, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond
from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval
of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to
address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is
not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and
become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing one-hundred-
eighty-day requirement, which extension may not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days in length,
and one (1) additional extension which may not exceed sixty (60) days in length. This subsection (A)
shall apply to applications which are, or have been, filed pursuant to this Code and to applications
which are, or have been, filed pursuant to the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the
adoption of this Code. On transfer of ownership of any real property that is the subject of a pending
application, whether in whole or in part, such transfer shall bar a new owner or transferee from taking
further action on such application unless, prior to taking any action, the new owner provides
evidence satisfactory to the Director that the transferor of such property intended that all rights of the
owner under the pending application be assigned to the transferee.
(B) Overall Development Plan. There is no time limit for action on an overall development plan. Because
an overall development plan is only conceptual in nature, no vested rights shall ever attach to an
overall development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, project development
plans or final plans for portions of an overall development plan shall not create vested rights for
those portions of the overall development plan which have not received such approvals and have not
been completed.
(C) PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan shall be eligible for a vested property right solely with
respect to uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards for which variances have
been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), as all are set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan, and an
approved PUD Master Plan shall be considered a site specific development plan solely for the purpose of
acquiring such vested property right.
(1) Specification of Uses, Densities, Development Standards, and Engineering Standards. The
application for a PUD Master Plan shall specify the uses, densities, development standards,
and Engineering Standards granted variances pursuant to Section 4.29(L), for which the
applicant is requesting a vested property right. Such uses, densities, and development
standards may include those granted modifications pursuant to Section 4.29 and uses,
densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code which are applicable to
the PUD Master Plan.
(2) Term of Vested Right. The term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years
unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, or (b) the City
and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a
period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City if the
Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all phases of
the development and the associated engineering improvements for the development, and only
if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the overall size of
the development and economic cycles and market conditions. Council shall adopt any such
development agreement as a legislative act subject to referendum.
(3) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by
the Director, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to
the public good. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the
original PUD Master Plan decision maker, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been
diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the
extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of
vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30)
days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the
Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the original PUD
Master Plan decision maker.
(4) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing the PUD Master Plan and stating that a vested
property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City, not later than fourteen (14) days after the
approval of a PUD Master Plan, an extension of an existing vested right, or the legislative
adoption of a development agreement as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or
judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made
within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter.
(5) Minor and Major Amendments. In the event that a minor or major amendment to a PUD Master
Plan is approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10, and such amendment alters or adds
uses, densities, development standards, or Engineering Standards for which variances have
been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), a new vested property right may be created upon the
applicant’s request and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. If the applicant wants the
term of the new vested property right to exceed three years, such extended term must be
approved and legislatively adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection.
(DC) Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and
upon the expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following
appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development
plan within three (3) years unless the project development plan is for a large base industry to be
constructed in phases, in which case the application for approval of a final plan must be submitted
within twenty-five (25) years. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or
any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically lapse and become null
and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing requirement, which extension
may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall ever attach to a project development
plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project
development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan
which have not received such final plan approval and have not been completed.
(ED) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
(1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the recording by the
City with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder of both the Final Plat and the Development
Agreement and upon such recording, a vested property right shall be created pursuant to the
provisions of Article 68 Title 24, C.R.S., and this Section 2.2.11.
(2) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing generally the type and intensity of use approved
and the specific parcel or parcels affected, and stating that a vested property right has been
created or extended, shall be published by the City once, not later than fourteen (14) days after
the approval of any final plan or other site specific development plan in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable
right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication,
whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the approval of a final plan
or other site specific development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and complete all
engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and
storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of time shall
constitute the "term of the vested property right." The foregoing term of the vested property right
shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (4) of
this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which
vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered
into by the City only if the subject development constitutes a "large base industry" as defined in
Article 5, or if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to
complete all engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all
relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development,
economic cycles and market conditions. Any such development agreement shall be adopted as
a legislative act subject to referendum. Failure to undertake and complete such engineering
improvements within the term of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested
property right and shall require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to be
processed as required by this Code. All dedications as contained on the final plat shall remain
valid unless vacated in accordance with law.
(4) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by
the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as
contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the
application for the extension. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all,
only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable
general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as
contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant
has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph
(3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other
extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering
improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship
upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A
request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the
Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence.
The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the
Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board.
(5) Minor Amendments. In the event that minor amendments to a final plan or other site-specific
development plan are approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if
permissible), the effective date of such minor amendments, for purposes of duration of a vested
property right, shall be the date of the approval of the original final plan or other site-specific
development plan.
(6) Major Amendments. The approval of major amendments to a final plan or other site-specific
development plan under the provisions of Section 2.2.10 (or under prior law, if permissible),
shall create a new vested property right with effective period and term as provided herein,
unless expressly stated otherwise in the decision approving such major amendment.
(7) Planning over old plans. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property
which includes all of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of such
new final plan shall cause the automatic expiration of such previously approved site-specific
development plan. In the event that a new final plan is approved for a parcel of property which
includes only a portion of a previously approved site-specific development plan, the approval of
such new final plan shall be deemed to constitute the abandonment of such portion of the
previously approved plan as is covered by such new plan, and shall be reviewed according to
the abandonment criteria contained in subsection 2.1.4(C) and all other applicable criteria of this
Code.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(8) Other provisions unaffected. Approval of a final plan or other site-specific development plan shall
not constitute an exemption from or waiver of any other provisions of this Code pertaining to the
development and use of property.
(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 new plan includes substantial
changes in land use, residential density and/or nonresidential intensity.
(10) Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create any vested property right
other than such right as is established pursuant to the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S.
In the event of the repeal of said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or
unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the provisions hereof no
longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the waiver of a vested property
right pursuant to mutual agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the
recording of any such agreement with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, any property
right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to be not vested.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures
A project 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:
(A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Applicable, only if the project development plan is not subject to an
overall development plan.
(B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for project
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.
(D) Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable.
(E) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(F) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(G) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Administrative review (Type 1 review) applies to a project development plan that satisfies
all of the following conditions:
(a) it was submitted after the effective date of this Land Use Code and is subject to the
provisions of this Land Use Code; and
(b) it contains only permitted uses subject to administrative review as listed in the zone
district (set forth in Article 4, District Standards) in which it is located.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to a project development plan
that does not satisfy all of the conditions in (1), above.
Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing,
Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of
Decisions and Plats): Applicable.
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General
Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable
District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of
an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be
consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD
Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or
portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be
subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
(I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(K) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(L) Step 1 2 (Appeals): Applicable.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay shall mean an area of land approved for
development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division
2.15. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and
restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for
development of an area within an approved PUD Overlay, which identifies the
general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and
certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan
substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master
Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to vested
property rights regarding specific uses, densities, Land Use Code development
standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to
Section 4.29(L).
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
1
Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Divisions 2.15 and 4.29
Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure
(A) Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more
complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return
for significant public benefits not available through traditional development
procedures.
(B) Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Overlay is available to
properties of 50 20 acres or greater in size.
(C) Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable to any proposed PUD
Overlay subject to Planning and Zoning Board or City Council review.
If a neighborhood meeting is required at the conceptual planning
stage pursuant to Section 2.2.2, a second neighborhood meeting
shall be required after the PUD Overlay application has been
submitted and the first round of staff review completed.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents
as described in the development application submittal master list for
a PUD Overlay shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, 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 (Review of Application): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to
PUD Overlay applications between 50 20 and 640 acres;
(2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications
greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
2
Board recommendation. City Council approval of a PUD
Overlay shall be by ordinance.
Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of
Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to
Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with
all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District
Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision
on a PUD Overlay between 50 20 and 640 acres is appealable to City
Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project
Development Plans within PUD Overlays are subject to the
limitations of Section 4.29(J).
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
3
Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
(A) Purpose.
(1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final
Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved
PUD Master Plan.
(2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for
real property within an approved PUD Overlay.
(3) Positions large areas of property for phased development.
(4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to
integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher
design, engineering and construction standards and other
community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under
the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of
adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards.
(5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses,
densities, and applicable development and zone district standards.
(B) Objectives.
(1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas.
(2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD
Overlay must provide public benefits greater than those typically
achieved through the application of a standard zone district,
including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a
particular PUD Master Plan:
(a) Diversification in the use of land;
(b) Innovation in development;
(c) More efficient use of land and energy;
(d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the
development;
(e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and
(f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted
plans and policies.
(3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive
development that takes advantage of site characteristics.
(4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real
property owners within a large area.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
4
(5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from
negative impacts.
(C) Applicability.
(1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50
20 acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners
authorize their respective property to be included.
(2) An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and
will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to
the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan.
(3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for
an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of
an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for
Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s).
(D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure.
(1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone
district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the
Section 2.15 of the common review procedures.
(2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker
must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria:
(a) The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of
Sections 4.29 (A) and (B);
(b) The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within
the subject property or properties;
(c) The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in
compliance with the principles and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies;
(d) The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in
compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and
services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and
utilities; and
(e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use
Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the
extent such development standards have been modified pursuant
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
5
to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master
Plan.
(E) Permitted Uses.
(1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted
within an approved PUD Overlay.
(2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be
requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of
review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development
Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being
requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies
below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an
additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each
approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the
applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if
it would not be contrary to the public good.
(a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD Overlay
provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles
and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans
and policies; and
(b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions
regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to
water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
(c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the
requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone
district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay.
(d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the
PUD Overlay.
(F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved
PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be
permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited.
(G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
6
(1) Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land
Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified
as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described
in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set
forth in Division 2.8.
(2) The application must enumerate the densities and development
standards proposed to be modified.
(a) The application shall describe the minimum and maximum
densities for permitted residential uses.
(b) The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article
3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development
standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of
each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable
application of the modified standards to Project Development
Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance
with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan.
Modifications under this Section may not be granted for
Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and
variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection
(L).
(3) In order to approve requested density or development standard
modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or
development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria:
(a) The modified density or development standard is consistent
with the purposes, and advance the objectives of, the PUD
Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B);
(b) The modified density or development standard significantly
advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan;
(c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to
achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan;
and
(d) The modified density or development standard is consistent
with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and adopted plans and policies.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
7
(H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are
subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I)
and (J).
(I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment.
(1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in
accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following:
(i) The written request of all of the real property owners
within a PUD Overlay; or
(ii) The City, provided no vested property right approved in
connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect
upon termination.
(b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision
maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination
is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a
public hearing to address the issue.
(c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the
overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone
district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall
control.
(d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination
of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6.
(2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may
be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code
Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following:
(i) The written request of all real property owners within the PUD
Overlay; or
(ii) The written request of the original applicant for the approved
PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal
control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and
(2) The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan
without the consent of other owners of real property within
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
8
the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or
deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or
(iii) The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify,
or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection
with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the
beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right.
(b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or
otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved
amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real
property within the PUD Overlay which:
(i) Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD
Master Plan;
(ii) Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final
Plan; or
(iii) Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time
the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the
City.
(J) Appeals.
(1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is
appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
(2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may
be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the
uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master
Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal.
(K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C),
the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested
property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development
standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted
pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development
standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses,
densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The
applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested
property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
9
from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three year period
specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor.
(L) Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in
Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban
Street Standards, may be processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan
pursuant to the applicable variance procedures provided that such
procedures allow for the processing of variances in connection with a PUD
Master Plan. Variances approved in connection with a PUD Master Plan
shall be applicable to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted
subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the
approved PUD Master Plan provided that such variances have been
approved prior to the approval of the PUD Master Plan and are
incorporated into the PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the PUD
Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any approved
variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may also be
processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final Plan
submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan.
50 Acres
45 Acres
40 Acres
35 Acres
30 Acres
25 Acres
20 Acres
Growth Management Area Boundary
City Limits - Area
PUD Buildable Land Analysis
Qualifying Properties ATTACHMENT 2
May 29, 2018
Dear P&Z Board Members,
This letter concerns the agenda item “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code
Amendment” for your May 31
st
Regular Hearing. I strongly urge you to include two
neighborhood meeting in the Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review
Procedure; with at least one occurring after “uses, modifications to densities and development
standards” have been explicitly stated. The development community is being given “…flexibility
in site design in return for significant benefits…”; the neighborhood residents should have ample
opportunity to understand exactly what flexibility is being given in return for what significant
benefits. For most concerned neighborhood residents this will be their first encounter with the
land use code and development process, understanding of them is a daunting undertaking that
takes time.
Sincerely
Paul Patterson
2936 Eindborough
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ATTACHMENT 3
Post Modern Development, Inc.
April 30, 2018
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
cgloss@fcgove.com
Re: Comments to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Overlay Draft
Dear Cameron,
This letter summarizes Post Modern Development (“PMD”) and Terra Development Group’s (“Terra”) initial
comments to the draft text of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District that you circulated on
April 19, 2018.
We appreciate you sharing the proposed PUD draft with us, and we believe that having a PUD District
available in Fort Collins will help encourage high quality and creative projects not currently allowed in
standard zone districts. However, as an active developer of residential and mixed-use projects, we do have
several concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed draft language, which are detailed below.
1. Division 2.15(B) – Minimum Size Requirement. The applicability of the PUD only to properties of
50 acres or larger greatly limits its use and function. We only know of a handful of parcels or
possible assemblages within the City’s boundaries that are this large. As a result, the benefits of
the PUD’s flexibility will only be available to certain pockets within the community – this result is
contrary to the City’s goal of creating significant public benefits through PUD Districts.
As an alternative, we would suggest the size limit be changed to 20 acres. A smaller size
requirement would give more projects the option of taking advantage of the PUD planning
mechanism. This is consistent with the standard practices of other Colorado communities. For
example, PUD Districts in the Cities of Loveland and Centennial can apply to property of any size.
In Denver, the minimum PUD size is 10 acres. The 20-acre threshold, will make this tool more
useful for phased projects, developers and the City to apply within Fort Collins.
2. Division 4.29(B)(2) – Objectives. The requirement that development under a PUD District must
provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through a standard zone
district is likely to have a chilling effect on their use. We are concerned that the additional flexibility
in site design will not provide enough of an incentive to overcome the additional costs created by
this requirement. Many developers will see this requirement as a carte blanche for the City to
circumvent traditional rational nexus/rough proportionality analyses and request – or even demand
– unlimited or disproportionate concessions and public improvements. We suggest the City
consider eliminating this requirement. In the event that you choose to keep the enumerated list of
public benefits, we request that some objective criteria and additional detail be added so that
developers are given guidance as to whether their project meets this standard and qualifies for
PUD District prior to going through the time and expense to apply and appear before the Planning
and Zoning Board for a determination. This requirement also presumes that the increased creativity
and improved design afforded by a PUD framework is not, in itself, public benefit to justify the use
of this tool.
3. Division 4.29 (E) – Uses. In the case of certain zoning districts within the City, there exist allocations
of certain primary or secondary uses as percentages of areas or parcels. In order to facilitate the
flexibility of uses (which is a stated purpose of the PUD), we would suggest additional clarification
within the PUD language that these allocations of percentage of uses within the underlying zone
district do not apply to a PUD.
4. Division 4.29(G)(6) – Term of Vested Rights. The mandated expiration of vested rights related to
the uses, densities and modified development standards under a PUD Master Plan should be
removed. This concept conflicts with the City’s existing rules on the term of vested property rights,
which currently say that an extension may be granted without expiration, provided that the City and
developer enter into a development agreement. In addition, removing this limitation is consistent
with the practices of many peer cities, including Boulder and Broomfield, and is allowed by the
Colorado vested rights statute.
If the expiration concept is not removed altogether, it would be more beneficial if the initial vested
rights period could be extended by multiple additional ten-year extensions, rather than one-year
extensions. As a master developer, PMD and Terra know firsthand that large developments can
take years, or even decades, to complete, particularly when economic and market cycles fluctuate.
Investors, lenders, and tenants rely on vested rights in making their decisions to participate in a
project in early stages, relying on the vested right to guarantee that the project can be completed
according to its approved development plans throughout its later stages. It is of critical importance
that vested rights period realistically match the projected pace of development.
Because there is no limit on the length of time for a vested right that can be negotiated in a
development agreement for other developments not using a PUD, this provision places PUD
projects at a disadvantage relative to other types of projects in the City. Developers might elect to
avoid using the PUD process, even if it is the most suitable for a project, if they cannot obtain a
vested right that will accommodate the entire anticipated phasing of a project’s development.
5. Division 4.29(I)(1) – Expiration. Incorporating an automatic 20-year expiration date into all PUD
Master Plans creates uncertainty and adds complexity to the regulatory process. Again, by their
very nature, projects seeking to use the PUD District process are likely more complex, and will
likely have lengthier phasing of development, compared to other types of projects. As proposed, a
developer could plan a large community around the flexible uses and site design offered by the
PUD District, only to have that expire prior to the project being completed. The proposed
mechanisms to extend the life of the PUD are either (i) upon the request of all of the property
owners with the PUD District, or (ii) upon the request of those property owners whose real property
interest are affected. Both of these options create uncertainty that a developer or the City would be
able to extend the PUD if needed or desired.
In the case of a large development, approval by all property owners would be a very difficult bar to
reach. By the time expiration becomes an issue, dozens or even hundreds of parties could have
ownership interests in the property within the PUD. This could include a mix of homeowners,
commercial property owners, governmental entities such as metro districts, and others.
Coordinating them all would be virtually impossible. Even in the event that coordination of affected
property owners is solely required, that will still likely be infeasible. In all cases under these
mechanisms it would be impossible for a developer to know with certainty that he can meet these
thresholds.
If a PUD expires for all or a portion of the PUD District, it would likely create additional problems
for property owners and the City in the form of nonconforming structures, standards and/or uses.
These issues would extend to not only affect the developers, but tenants, lenders or insurers on
the property.
We would request that the expiration be eliminated so that a PUD would solely expire upon the
request of the property owners.
6. Division 4.29(I)(2) – Amendment. The requirement that all owners or all directly affected owners
of property within a PUD approve of any amendment will greatly limit the ability and interest to
utilize the PUD. Since a PUD applies to larger developments that will likely phase over time, we
would envision numerous revisions requested as a PUD area is developed. As properties are sold
and property owners are added within the PUD, a developer will be uncertain that these thresholds
for amendment can be met. The result is that these mechanisms significantly decrease the interest
of developers to utilize the PUD as future flexibility for amendment may be limited. We do not
believe the current approaches are flexible enough. In the case where a master developer needs
to change provisions of the PUD Master Plan to accommodate ongoing development of a project,
we believe it should be specifically be allowed.
We suggest adding that an amendment may be proposed by either a) the majority property owner
within the PUD, or b) any property owner within the PUD with the consent of all adjacent property
owners within the PUD District. We would also request that such amendment process be handled
as a minor amendment process via the City planning department.
We appreciate your ongoing work on this matter and the opportunity to comment on this draft regulation.
Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
JD Padilla
Post Modern Development
Roni Amid
Terra Development Group
Tal Hackmey
Terra Development Group
Jacob Steele
Terra Development Group
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code Divisions 2.15 and 4.29
Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Master Plan Review
Procedure
A. Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners to achieve
flexibility in site design and the security of extended vesting of
rights in return for significant public benefits not available through
traditional development procedures. Define what the areas of
community benefit could be with a grading system for economic
development, energy and land conservation, social and artistic
values, affordability and others.
B. Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Master Plan is
available to properties of 50 this is too large as there are no 50 acre
sites left within the GMA, therefore it should be 5 -10 acre site
minimal with a qualifier for even smaller infill sites where
appropriate. The entitlement cost are the same for 5,10 acres or 50
acres or greater in size. The motivation for a community benefit and
need for flexibility is greater for a smaller infill site than would be
for a 50 acre greenfield site.
C.Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review):
Applicable. It would great if the staff would actually
conceptualize ideas that would result in a better community
project instead of just quoting permit cost that are irrelevant
at this early stage.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. There could be a
reward to development projects that do the design charrette
process instead of just a small meeting giving notice to the
community of a pending project. The design charrette engages
the community to gather real input that can be useful and it
cost more to put together. If the developer holds a design
charrette it would be great to reward the project with less
submittal requirements as it takes a lot of effort to flush out
area issues and solutions which is really the purpose of a high
submittal requirement standards.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or
documents as described in the development application
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
submittal master list shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, 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. Need
Flexibility with staff initiated changes if it will make a better
project with a better community benefit.
(4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies
to PUD applications between 10 and 640 acres;
(2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD applications
greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and
Zoning Board recommendation. This process should be
available to used by the local small builders and
developers as the 50 acre minimal standard only helps the
Wall Street type builder developer.
Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of
Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings,
Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of
Decision): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to
Section 4.29(G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all
General Development Standards applicable to the development
proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards
(Article 4) including Division 4.29.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Not applicable. A PUD Master Plan is not a
site specific development plan and does not qualify for vested
property rights pursuant to Section 2.2.11. PUD vested
property rights for uses, densities, and modifications to
development standards expressly identified as vested within a
PUD Master Plan are permitted exclusively pursuant to Section
4.29(G), in substitution of the procedures of Section 2.2.11.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board
decision on a PUD between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to
City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
(13) Optional Step A (Optional Preapplication Review): Applicants
for review of a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres are
allowed to participate in the following optional review
procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have
completed their conceptual review and neighborhood
meeting but have not submitted a development
application. 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 respond to 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 preapplication 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. All information related to an
optional review shall be considered part of the record of
any subsequent PUD Master Plan review related to all or
part of the property that was the subject of the optional
review. Only (1) optional review session may be requested
for any proposed PUD Master Plan.
Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District
(A)Purpose.
(1) Serves as a review procedure for subsequent Project
Development Plans for a large development area governed by
an approved PUD Master Plan.
(2) Substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development
Plan as to property within an approved PUD Master Plan.
(3) Positions large areas of property for phased development.
(4) May provide vesting of uses, density and certain development
standards to the extent expressly set forth in an approved PUD
Master Plan.
(5) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to
integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher
design, engineering and construction standards and other
community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted
under strict application of the Land Use Code and engineering
standards.
(6) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land
uses, housing types, lot sizes, densities, and/or supporting nonresidential
uses.
(B)Objectives.
(1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large
areas.
(2) In return for flexibility in site design with respect to the
arrangement, heights, and setbacks of buildings, densities,
open space and circulation elements, as well as vesting of
certain uses, densities and development standards,
development under a PUD District must provide significant
public benefits greater than those typically achieved through
application of a standard zone district, including, but not
limited to:
(a)Diversification in the use of land;
(b)Innovation in development;
(c)More efficient use of land and energy;
(d) Extent of public amenities as appropriate in light of
the scope of the development; and
(e) Development patterns compatible in character and
design with nearby areas and consistent with the
purpose and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans.
(3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive
development that takes advantage of site characteristics.
(4) Promote coordination and cooperation among property owners
within a large area.
(5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD from
negative impacts.
(6) Provide a development review process that encourages
heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants,
affected property owners, neighbors and City staff.
(C)Applicability.
(1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a
minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for PUD Master Plan
approval.
(2) An approved PUD Master Plan will be shown upon the Zoning
Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to
apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with
the PUD Master Plan.
(3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the
requirement for an Overall Development Plan (ODP).
Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Master
Plan may proceed directly to application for Project
Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s).
(4) Unless otherwise specified, all references to vested rights
within Division 4.29 shall mean PUD vested property rights.
(D)Eligibility.
(1) Minimum size 5 - 10 or no minimal acres limit as great
community benefit could come is a small urban plot easier than
larger properties. This process should be made available to the
small local builder/ developers who have our communities best
interest at heart more so than does the Wall Street type
developer. The local talent is also more in tune with the
community desires for more creative socially responsible
solutions to local problems. The huge Wall Street developers
are just selling the same old dream that is generic to the
masses in every other market. The purpose of this process is to
allow for better more creative solutions to troubled site and a
50 acre site is not an infill location it is a greenfield project
and those projects are housing only otherwise to add
commercial and business uses promotes sprawl, which is the
opposite of community beneficial thinking.
(2) Application for PUD approval must be authorized by all owners
of property proposed to be included.
(E)Permitted Uses.
(1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are
permitted within an approved PUD.
(2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district
may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan, and may
be approved to the extent such uses satisfy the following
criteria:
(a)The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD
District provisions set forth in Subsections 4.29(A)and (B)
and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable
subarea and neighborhood plans. These subarea plans are
useful but lack flexibility in zoning and permitted uses. The
infill sites are extremely difficult to develop because they
have more severe problems than does a greenmail site and
therefore needs to allow for more flexible creative
solutions.
(b)The use conforms to the basic characteristics of the
underlying zone district and the other permitted uses in the
zone district to which it is added. I disagree with the above
statement as the underlying zone district is not always an
appropriate planned use for the difficult site. It should be
stated that the infill sites are allowed more flexibility for
creative project solutions if a higher community benefit is
to be reached. Sometime the highest and best use of a site
is not for Urban Estates type lots but rather a community
benefit project of a community farm agricultural project
with some commercial operations like coffee brewing,
bakery, farmers markets and other supporting business that
are not permitted in most zoning designation but have huge
community benefit.
(c)The location and size of the use is compatible with and has
minimal negative impact on the use of adjacent properties.
The above sentence should be more positive in that these
projects should be designed to enhance and collaborate
with the surrounding properties to provide supporting uses
that help create sense of place and purpose.
(d)To the maximum extent feasible, use does not create any
more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor,
glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse
environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasipublic
facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on
public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse
impacts of development, than the amount normally
resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the
underlying zone district. This is way too restrictive because
it takes away the chance and motivation for creative land
uses will never fall within the permitted uses of the
underlying zoning district. Keeping in mind that this process
is intended for infill sites that have problems and therefore
should be allowed the most flexibility.
(e)The use is warranted by changing conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
property
(f)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use is
compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding
the subject land and is the appropriate use for that land
(g)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise,
storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands
and the natural functioning of the environment.
(F)Prohibited Uses. None.
(G)Vesting of Uses, Density, and Modification of Development
Standards.
(1) PUD vested property rights may be approved as part of a PUD
Master Plan under the provisions of this Division 4.29. The
procedures in this Section 4.29(G) are the exclusive means by
which vested rights may be approved within a PUD Master Plan.
Section 2.2.11 does not apply to vested rights under a PUD
Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific
development plan but is subject to Division 2.13, Vested Rights
and Takings Determinations.
(2) In order to vest rights under a PUD Master Plan, the applicant
must submit an application for such vested rights as a part of
its Development Application submittal. If approved as a part of
a PUD Master Plan by the decision maker, the vested rights
shall be described in the PUD Master Plan Development
Agreement, which shall detail the elements of the PUD Master
Plan which are vested, the term of vesting, and any conditions
of that vesting.
(3) The applicant must enumerate the elements for which it
requests vesting, which may include:
(a)Uses permitted in the underlying zone district and those
approved to be added to the subject property as a part of
an approved PUD Master Plan application.
(b)Densities for permitted residential uses, the application
may request vesting of such uses at established ratios of
dwelling units per acre.
(c)The applicant shall enumerate which specific Land Use
Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use
and development standards are proposed to be modified
and vested, as modified, and the nature of that
modification, in terms sufficiently specific to enable
application of the modified standards to Project
Development Plans and Final Development Plans submitted
subsequent to, in conformance with, and intended to
implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Land Use Code
Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities, is not eligible for
modification.
(4) The applicant shall list, as part of its application, the specific
standards list which it wishes to modify, and the specific
modification, in detail sufficient to enable the application of
such modified standards, if approved as part of the PUD Master
Plan, to later Project Development Plans and Final
Development Plans. The decision maker shall review requests
for the modification of development standards and the vesting
of such modified standards against the following criteria, as
appropriate and applicable to the specific PUD Master Plan
application:
(a) The degree to which modification of the development
standards is consistent with the purpose of the PUD
District as described in Section 4.29.A
(b) The degree to which the modification of the development
standard advances the objectives of the PUD District as
described in Section 4.29.B
(c) Whether the requested modification will significantly
advance the development objectives of the application.
(d) Whether the requested modification is necessary to
achieve the development objectives of the application.
(5) If approved, vesting applies despite later text amendments to
the underlying zone district which remove or revise permitted
uses or otherwise alter or revise permitted densities and
development standards.
(6) Term of vested rights: Uses, densities, and modified
development standards which are approved for vesting under
this Section shall be vested for a period not to exceed ten (10)
years from the date of approval of the PUD Master Plan.
Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each
may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan
complies with all general development standards as contained
in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article
4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any
additional extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the
decision maker for the PUD Master Plan, upon a finding that
the plan complies with all applicable general development
standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards
as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the
extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in
pursuing development under the approved PUD Master Plan, or
(b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations
unique to the property, completing development would result
in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue
hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would
not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an
extension of the term of vested right under this Section must
be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The
granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may,
at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the decision
maker for the PUD Master Plan.
(7) Upon the expiration of the term of a vested right, the use,
density, or development standard to which the vested right
applied shall remain available for utilization. However, such
use, density, or development standard is subject to
amendment or elimination pursuant to Subsection (I)(8) of this
Division.
(H)Review Procedure.
(1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying
zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant
to the common review procedures, Section 2.15.
(2) Criteria for approval of a PUD Master Plan:
aThat the application achieves the purpose and objectives of
Sections 4.29 A and B;
bThat the application will ensure superior urban design
within the subject property in excess of development under
the standards applicable to the underlying zone district;
cThat the application will ensure enhanced public and
private infrastructure design, including the design of private
residential, commercial and industrial structures at a level
of quality significantly above that merely required by
compliance with uniform codes and development standards;
dThat the application will ensure compatibility and/or the
enhancements of the subject property with adjacent
properties in design and use, as well as public infrastructure
and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage,
trails, and utilities; and
eThat the application will result in a community benefit
contribution development projects that are in the spirit and
intended purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These public
benefit contribution and enhancement type projects will
not be restricted by outdated plans but will become timely
updated amendments incorporated into the comprehensive
planning strategies. Old and Outdated plans should not be
the driving force for project compliance during changing
times. The average age of the Fort Collins demographic is
29 years old and getting younger so they don’t want big
hoses and yards they want a cheaper better way of living
together in community that allows for flexibility in life
pathways. Community! Community! Community!
(I)Extension, Amendment, Expiration, and Termination of a PUD
Master Plan.
(1) PUD Master Plans may be established for an initial period not
to exceed twenty (20) years.
(2) Vested rights to uses, densities, and/or modified development
standards within an approved PUD Master Plan are subject to
the term established for those rights under subsection 4.29(G)
(6).
(3) Applicant must sign an agreement acknowledging the limited
term of the PUD Master Plan, and, if granted, the term of the
vested rights, the absence of any right to rely on the PUD
Master Plan or the vested rights beyond the approved terms for
the same, and indemnifying the City for any claim related to
their operation, enforcement, or expiration.
(4) Upon the request of the property owners, the Council may
terminate the PUD Master Plan.
(5) When the PUD Master Plan expires or is terminated, the
overlay designation on the zoning map is removed and the
authority of the underlying zoning regulations is reestablished
in total.
(6) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or
termination of a PUD Master Plan is subject to Article 1,
Division 1.6.
(7) An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended, or its
established expiration date may be extended, under the
following alternative procedures:
(a)Upon the request of all property owners within the
District an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended
by processing of an application in the same manner as
an original request.
(b)Upon the request of those property owners whose real
property interests are directly affected, the Director
may approve a minor amendment to the PUD Master
Plan.
(8) The City may initiate and impose an amendment or
termination of an approved PUD Master Plan under the
procedure set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 for zoning
map amendments. No City initiated amendment or
termination of an approved PUD Master Plan shall amend,
modify, or terminate any vested right approved in connection
with such PUD Master Plan earlier than the expiration date of
such vested right.
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall mean an area of land
approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division
4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD overlays the PUD Master Plan
entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district
requirements.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved
plan for development of an area within an approved PUD, which identifies
the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses,
densities and certain modification of development standards. An
approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement for an Overall
Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site-specific development
plan.
PUD vested property right shall mean the right to utilize a use, density,
or development standard specified in an approved PUD master plan
during the term specified in such PUD Master Plan.
Proposed Application Requirements
(1) written explanation of the proposed development at a
conceptual level
(2) preliminary plans at concept review level
(3) submittal information from master list
(4) list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added,
modified, and/or vested pursuant to subsections 4.29(E) and
4.29(G)
(5) map of the proposed application boundaries including all lots,
tracts, out lots and rights-of-way
(6) list of all property owners
(7) written consent from all owners
(8) list of all current and proposed special districts serving the
property
(9) Written statement explaining how the proposed PUD Master
Plan complies with or enhances the Comprehensive Plan and
any other applicable, adopted plans.
(10) PUD Master Plan specifying the type and extent of
development proposed including the following components:
• overall site plan indicating the intensity and general
configuration of the proposed uses
• transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle
and pedestrian circulation
• location of open space, natural habitat and features,
floodways and other areas designated for preservation
• architectural concept plan including renderings,
photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing
architectural design intent.
• phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each
phase
• list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD
Master Plan
(11) listing of off-site infrastructure improvements and estimated
costs
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2017
Page 2 of 7
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
None noted.
Discussion Agenda:
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment
Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Administration), Article
4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District. The proposed PUD Overlay District provides for additional flexibility in
site design not available through traditional development procedures, and the ability for extended vested property
rights, in return for the provision of significant public benefits. Under the PUD process, parcels 50 acres or greater
in size are eligible to create a governing, multi-phased PUD Master Plan that directs and guides subsequent Project
Development Plans (PDP’s) and Final Plans for each development phase.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber reported that Paul Patterson urges the Board to consider requiring two neighborhood meetings
for a PUD. Article 5, Definitions, in Attachment 1 was updated in the packet with a new version on 5/29/18.
Section 2.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.6 were added to supplemental documents on 5/29/18.
Member Rollins recused herself
Member Hansen stated he had viewed a previous PUD presentation as a member of the Development
Review Advisory Committee.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project. This overview included a history of PUD’s in Fort
Collins, public benefits, standards to be set, community engagement and attributes of the proposed ordinance.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, would like to see smaller parcel sizes rather than the large 50-acre greenfield
parcels. Would like to recommend that the acreage be as little as 5-acre parcels.
Paul Patterson, would like a requirement for neighborhood meetings for PUDs to be set at two and timing be when
modifications and provisions of significant public benefit can be explicitly stated.
Staff Response
Planning Manager Gloss responded to Mr. Patterson’s concern about neighborhood meetings that the proposed
requirement that a second neighborhood meeting would be required after the first round of development review and
include requests for modification and the vesting of property rights.
In response to Mr. Willis’ comments, Planning Manager Gloss spoke to the parcel sizes and rationale for the staff’s
position relative to the size threshold.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Chair Schneider sought clarification as to whether or not this is in draft or final format. Planning Manager Gloss
explained that the element that is not complete is the specific techniques to amend the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards and Engineering Standards; otherwise, all other aspects are complete. Chair Schneider is
uncomfortable with making a decision due to potential changes from now until the final adoption version. Assistant
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2017
Page 3 of 7
City Attorney Schmidt responded that she agrees with Planning Manager Gloss and added that they were seeking
input from the Board early in the process.
Member Hobbs feels that PUDs have a large ramification for the community and it seems that outside of the P&Z
Board and the one other Board conversation was limited to talking to some in the development community.
Member Hansen expressed interest in other forms of community engagement. Planning Manager Gloss stated that
the outreach process with legislative changes of this type was appropriate, since staff anticipates outcomes being
better than plans that would go through a conventional process and that there would be a more rigorous public
review process. It is felt that these projects will be held to a higher standard.
Member Hobbs asked if it was reasonable to perceive that the PUD was like starting with a blank slate; zoning
defined uses, setbacks, densities, etc. Planning Manager Gloss commented that in theory one could make that
assumption however; the principals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and detailed area plans still stand,
leaving the burden on the applicant to prove those values are embodied in the development plan.
Member Hansen spoke to significant public benefits as a requirement. As Member Hansen understands, there has
been a focus on removing subjectivity from the Land Use Code and this seems to be adding it in. How will we be
measuring significant public benefit? Planning Manager Gloss responded that we do not have a definition that
specifically states what this significant public benefit would be other than the PUD objectives. This is something
that would be weighed by the decision maker, being either this Board or City Council. Member Hansen stated is it
easy for him to agree in a small group with relatively common interests in mind but that he foresees that without a
way to quantify it could turn contentious. Member Hansen is in favor of the PUD, but feels if there is too much
uncertainty and onerous on developers, it will become another PDOD.
Member Hobbs asked why the PUD was stopped or left behind. Planning Manager Gloss understands that when
the system was previously in place there were a range of issues, for some it was a sense of less predictability,
concern from the public and development community about the length of time it took to get through the review
process, while others enjoyed the flexibility provided since our present code is highly prescriptive.
Member Hobbs asked what the rational was for differentiating below and above 640 acres? Planning Manager
Gloss responded that due to anything 640 acres or above is considered a legislative action and would need to go
before Council. Chair Schneider asked why 640 acres matters. Attorney Schmidt spoke to the history of the 640-
acre threshold, and that the concept is that, at some point, rezoning gets so large that is becomes more of a
legislative act than an application of a narrow set of standards to a piece of property. This community has set the
dividing line at one section. Chair Schneider asked that the goal then was to not change the zoning over the whole
640 acres. Would this automatically go to Council or come to the Planning and Zoning Board? Planning Manager
Gloss responded that the PUD overlay zone does not create a rezoning with the underlying zoning remaining the
same. Chair Schneider state that there was some confusion as it appears there is an opportunity to take property
and rezone/reuse and change what is there, why if we are not changing the use or overlying zoning, why do we
need a PUD? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD Master Plan allows the applicant/property owner
to essentially have uses that are different than what is allowed under the underlying zoning without the act of
rezoning. Chair Schneider commented that the PUD Master Plan can change zoning and density and everything
else that is allowed on that property. Planning Manager Gloss agreed and stated that the burden of proof is on the
applicant and that this is an optional process. Attorney Schmidt commented that it is about creativity and allowing
that creativity in the context of an overall master development plan that is intended to consider compatibility with
existing areas around it and is intended to deliver something in terms of a high or better level of public benefit.
Chair Schneider does not feel there is anything that we can compare it to and wants to make sure that people
understand when they are buying property or have bought property in certain areas that they understand what they
are up against.
Member Hobbs feels that the Board must be careful with the effect on utilities, transportation, level of service
issues, and other areas. Even if it is a greenfield site, the Board must look at what is located further away.
Member Hobbs agrees and shares Chair Schneider’s hesitation.
Chair Schneider stated that it looks like we are getting rid of the PDOD process, Planning Manager Gloss answered
yes. Chair Schneider questioned what happens with the current project that is currently in the process. Planning
Manager Gloss stated that the project did not submit a formal application and that there is not a project currently in
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2017
Page 4 of 7
the process. Chair Schneider asked if we were getting rid of the APU process, Planning Manager Gloss answered
no. Chair Schneider questioned a statement in the APU, 1.34 C1B, and wondered if this was going to affect the
PUD. Planning Manager Gloss responded that this was a section that was not to be changed other than a few
minor text amendments. Member Hobbs asked for issues that transcend a zoning district like the setbacks from oil
wells - would these things still be on the table as a negotiable item in a PUD overlay? Planning Manager Gloss
stated that all article 3 and 4 standards remain except where a modification is being requested, evaluated and
granted under the PUD Master Plan process.
Chair Schneider asked about trash and recycling design and that the Director can waive the design standards.
Why are we not making this mandatory? Planning Manager Gloss responded that this is the way the code reads
today and that no changes are being proposed. Chair Schneider made mentioned of a letter received from Post
Modern Development and Mr. Patterson about requiring two (2) neighborhood meetings and wondered if this was
going to be mandated. Planning Manager Gloss stated that was correct. Prior to submittal and the second will
coincide with the first round of review. To answer questions posed by Post Modern Development, the staff
reviewed in its presentation the range of sizes and can understand about the 50-acre minimum. Considerations
would be made for other size thresholds. Chair Schneider referred to section 2.10 1 A-G and 2 A-E. Planning
Manager Gloss responded that these sections relate to how an amendment would happen when you have a PUD
Master Plan. For the most part, the PUD Master Plan amendment process mirrors what has been done for other
types of applications.
Deliberation
Member Hobbs feels it is good for the community and offers flexibility to staff and will not become another PDOD,
however; he is not at a point where he is comfortable voting on a recommendation and would like a continuation.
Member Hansen agrees with Member Hobbs’ approach and offered suggestions. Developers will be able to think
out of the box a bit. Some suggestions may be to devise a point system; he is also concerned about the parcel size
of the threshold of 50 acres. Member Hansen also spoke to Chair Schneider’s concerns.
Chair Schneider is not against the proposal, he feels is has been pushed too hard, too fast. There needs to be an
opportunity for discussion and that if it is larger than 640 acres it becomes a political conversation, and that is not
what the Land Use Code is about, it is about what is available and what is being used on that property. The size
should go less than 50 acres. He would like this item to be continued
Member Hobbs stated that the same two issues are also of concern to him. He is concerned about the surrounding
effects of the larger PUDs that will come down. He would also like to discuss the possibility of appeal for Land Use.
Member Hansen asked why there was a sense of urgency. Planning Manager Gloss responded that they had a
target of August 1, 2018, roughly and even if there continued to the June 21, 2018 hearing, they would remain on
that schedule.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Planned Unit
Development Overlay Land Use Code changes included in the Board’s May 31, 2018 agenda to a future
hearing date. Member Whitley seconded. Member Whitley would like more time to understand all of it. Chair
Schneider agreed and is looking forward to a full work session. Vote: 4:0.
2. Oasis on Olive PDP180003
Project Description: This is a request to develop a 3-story multi-family, condominium building and ground level
parking on approximately .223 acres of existing vacant land, located at 310 W. Olive Street. The 7-market rate
residential units will be a mix of 3 1-bedroom units, and 4 2-bedroom units. The building includes 8,468 of living
space, and 7 parking spaces provided at the ground level in an enclosed parking garage. Access to this site will be
from W. Olive Street by means of a one-way private entry drive into the garage, and one-way exit to Canyon
Avenue from a private drive. The site located in the Downtown (D) zone district, is subject to a Type II Planning and
Zoning Board Review.
1
Planned Unit Development
Cameron Gloss
June 19, 2018
ATTACHMENT 5
Questions
1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff
recommendation?
2. Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration
at an upcoming hearing?
2
Purpose
Create an optional review process that affords development that
provides:
significant public benefit otherwise not achievable under existing
regulations in return for flexibility in site design, land use, densities,
building heights, building setbacks, open space arrangement, and
circulation.
3
Public
Benefits
• Mixed-use
• Land use diversification
• Innovative land development
• Efficient land and energy use
• Exemplary pedestrian connections
and amenities
• Neighborhood compatibility
Typical
PUD
Attributes
• Ideally suited for projects:
• Developing in multiple phases over
several years
• Land use and density flexibility without
rezoning
• With unique street design
• Needing long-term property rights vesting
given length of development
PUD Process
Overview
PUD vs Rezoning
• PUD Master Plan retains the underlying zoning
• Boundaries defining areas of different uses can be more flexible with
PUD Master Plan being developed over time
• Rezoning cannot consider a proposed development plan, where a
PUD is controlled by a PUD Master Plan that defines uses and
densities
7
Size Threshold
8
Size Threshold
9
Parcels 640+ acres
10
Subject to City Council Review
due to policy implications
PUD’s in Peer Cities
Peer Cities PUD Size Threshold Point System
11
Eugene, OR Yes none No
Olathe, KS Yes (PD) none No
Lincoln, NE Yes 3 acres No
Ann Arbor, MI Yes none No
Greeley, CO Yes 1 acres No
Loveland, CO Yes none No
Boulder, CO No N/A No
Thornton, CO Yes none No
Denver, CO Yes 10 acres No
Longmont, CO Yes
10 acres ‐ non‐infill, 20 acres ‐ infill,
none ‐ overlays No
Example: Scotch Pines
12
Drake Rd
Retail/
Commercial
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Approx. Acres:
52
Example: Oak-Cottonwood Farm (Miramont)
13
Multi-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
Harmony Rd
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
Retail/
Commercial
Single-Family
Residential
Approx. Acres:
330
Case Study: Jessup Farm
14
Multi-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
Rd
Multi-Family
Residential
8 acres-Bucking Horse Townhomes – LMN
Single-Family
Residential
Retail/
Commercial
Single-Family
13 acre Artisan Village Residential
- Industrial
5 APU’s required
Neighborhood Compatibility
• 2 Neighborhood Meetings
• 1st prior to submittal
• 2nd following 1st
round of review
• All PDP’s within a PUD Master Plan must go through the PDP
process, including compliance with the Article 3 Compatibility
Standards
15
Community Engagement
• Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions
Feb 8, May 11
• Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)
May 8
• Property Owners/Developers
16
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
As proposed, the term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development and the
regulatory process that permits a developer to meet overall land use policies without being bound by all the
underlying use requirements within the Land Use Code and makes a provision for modifying design and
engineering standards. A PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD
Master Plan is approved. Potential benefits of the PUD overlay may include more efficient site design,
preservation of amenities such as open space, innovative community planning and site design solutions, higher
level of design, engineering and construction and other community goals, while protecting long-term property
rights for larger properties being constructed over multiple phases and long time periods.
PUD Zone District vs. Overlay Zone
When evaluating the potential zoning structure within the PUD ordinance, two options were considered: a PUD
overlay zone that supplements the existing underlying zoning and, alternatively, the adoption of a PUD zone
district that contains its own set of regulations and displaces the underlying zone. Given the pros and cons of
each approach, staff is proposing the former option. Under the proposed PUD overlay zone, the effect of such
designation is that the regulations for land use, density and design in the underlying zone district still apply to the
PUD unless expressly modified during the Master Plan process.
PUD Master Plan as the Regulating Document
The PUD ordinance requires that developers first create a PUD Master Plan that provides greater detail than the
“bubble diagrammatic” scale found in the City’s existing Overall Development Plan (ODP) process. The Master
Plan must have sufficient detail to serve as the overall guiding vision for the long-term development. At this
Master Plan level, applicants must provide specific requests for elements that will receive entitlement to long-term