HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/03/2018 - ITEMS RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) RAgenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2018, Amending Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Land Use Code
Regarding Planned Unit Development Overlay Regulations.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2018, Making Policy Revisions to the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards.
The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations
within the Land Use Code applicable to parcels 50 acres or greater in size being developed in multiple phases.
Under the Ordinance, a PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD
Master Plan is approved. The PUD Master Plan provides an overall vision for the long-term development,
including the project phasing, and the elements for which the applicant has requested entitlement to long-term
vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering
standards. Each development phase is subject to the Project Development Plan (PDP) process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
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. Allow 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. Promote innovative, high-quality community design
5. Forward adopted City plans, policies and standards
6. Address the unique challenges with large developments constructed in phases
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
Summary of Proposed Changes
The following Land Use Code changes are proposed.
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).
2.1.1-Decisionmaker
and Administrative
Review Bodies
Identifies the decisionmaker
for development
applications
Cites the Planning and Zoning Board as the review
body for PUD’s 640 acres or less, and the City Council
for all PUD’s greater than 640 acres.
2.1.2 - Overview of
Development
Procedures
Establishes the
development review
procedures for different
types of development
applications
Adds PUD Overlay as a development application type.
2.1.3 - Types of
Development
Applications
Describes the range of
development application
types.
Provides that a PUD Master Plan and PUD Overlay
may be substituted for the Overall Development Plan
(ODP) process.
2.1.6- Pre-
Application Review
Provides an Optional City
Council Pre-Application
review for complex projects.
Specifies that potential PUD applicants are afforded
the right to an optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay
Proposal Review with the Planning and Zoning Board
(50-640 acres) or City Council (>640 acres).
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 3
LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change
5.1.2 - Definitions Adds definitions for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master
Plan and clarifies that a PUD overlay may be granted
approval for a use not permitted in the underlying zone
district and that a PUD Master Plan is considered a
site-specific development 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
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
As proposed, the term Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay 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
When evaluating the potential zoning structure within the PUD ordinance, two options were considered: a PUD
overlay 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, 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 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
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 4
The decisionmaker for the PUD Master Plan action is dictated by the size of the development. For parcels
larger than 640 acres, 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 (PDPs)
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, such granted
modifications/variances would apply to the PDP approval and no additional modifications or variances may be
necessary.
Minimum Size Threshold for PUDs
Under the proposed ordinance, parcels must be a minimum of 50 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
parcel analysis, a total of 24 properties would be eligible although additional contiguous properties could be
conceivably consolidated under one application to reach the minimum size threshold. 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.
Neighborhood Meeting Requirements
Development procedures for the PUD process match the 12 common development review 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 2nd 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 meeting held 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.
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 5
Review of Public Benefits
Since its 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.
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.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the draft PUD ordinance at its May 31, 2018, hearing which
included a 20-acre minimum lot size, and elected to continue the item to the June 21 hearing, where it
recommended unanimous (6-0, Rollins recused) approval of the draft ordinance subject to a revision to the
Ordinance that provides no minimum acreage threshold for PUD applications.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Feedback was gathered on the proposed Code changes through direct correspondence with members of the
Fort Collins development community. Multiple comments were received, some by 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.
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 6
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 that 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-year initial vesting
period, with two additional one-year extensions granted by the Director, and with additional one-year
extensions available through action of the original decisionmaker (City Council or Planning and Zoning Board
depending upon the project scale). An initial vesting period longer than three years may be obtained if certain
requirements are met including Council legislatively adopting a development agreement regarding the
extended vesting. Concern has been raised by some that the vesting period should be lengthened given the
scale and complexity often found in PUD’s.
City Council provided direction to staff at its June 19, 2018, Work Session. Council expressed general support
for the overall PUD concept, but not the previously proposed 20-acre minimum parcel size threshold since the
community outreach effort has not extended to potentially affected existing neighborhoods which are more
likely to be located near smaller development sites. Council further requested that additional community be
provided if a smaller parcel size minimum is considered in the future. The minimum parcel size has been
changed from 20 to 50 acres based upon the Work Session feedback.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Buildable Land for PUDs (PDF)
2. Public Comments (PDF)
3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (PDF)
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2018 (draft) (PDF)
5. Work Session Summary, June 19, 2018 (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
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 1
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 2
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
EXCERPT
Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado
Christine Pardee
Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
May 31, 2018
MINUTES EXCERPT
for the
PUD Land Use Code Amendment
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley
Absent: Carpenter
Staff Present: Gloss, Schmidt, Simpkins, Wray, McWilliams, Martina, Bethurem Harras, Sullivan, Beane,
Tuttle and Gerber
***BEGIN EXCERPT***
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
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 3
EXCERPT
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2018
Page 2 of 4
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
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
EXCERPT
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2018
Page 3 of 4
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
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.
EXCERPT
Planning & Zoning Board
May 31, 2018
Page 4 of 4
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.
***END EXCERPT***
Planning and Zoning Board
June 21, 2018
DRAFT
Discussion Agenda:
4. Planned Unit Development Overlay - Land Use Code Changes
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.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber reported that a letter from Max Moss was received explaining the need for this ordinance. This
letter was added to Supplemental Documents. An update to the PUD overlay LUC 2.15 and 4.29 code section
were added to the packet. A new code section (2.2.2.1_ Proposed Pre-Application Review) was added to
Supplement Documents. An updated PUD Ordinance was received at 3:30 pm on 6/21 and added to Supplemental
Documents.
Disclosures and / or ex parte communications:
Member Rollins recused herself from this item.
Chair Schneider disclosed that he attended City Council’s work session on 6/19/2018 to gather information and to
hear what they had to say about this item.
Member Hansen disclosed that he watched a recording of that session.
Member Whitley disclosed that he too watched a recording of that session.
Member Hobbs disclosed that he watched a portion of that recording.
Member Carpenter disclosed that she watched a portion of that recording.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project and stated that there were very few substantive
changes and the received corresponding amendments would bring those sections of the code into compliance with
the PUD changes. The only substantive change from the May 31st and this evenings hearing is the threshold for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The threshold is being increased from 20 acres to 50 acres. This
could potentially affect 24 properties within the growth management area. Currently there are three (3) to four (4)
property owners who have expressed interest to move forward with a PUD. It was heard clearly from City Council
that there was a lack of support for going forward at this time with a smaller threshold, primarily because those
smaller properties are surrounded by existing neighborhoods and districts. Council’s perspective on the public
process is that the community engagement platform was not sufficient to reach all potentially affected property
owners. Staff will bring back to the Board and City Council a specific scope of work for community engagement
over the next year, which will include those community members that may be impacted by a smaller threshold. Part
of this plan will happen in conjunction with the City Plan update currently underway. Planner Gloss asked if the
Board would like to see the full presentation that was presented at the previous hearing.
Chair Schneider asked the Board if they were interested in viewing the full presentation. Member Hobbs stated that
he felt it would be a good opportunity for the community to view the presentation. Chair Schneider
agreed. Member Pardee stated she would like to see the presentation.
Planning Manager Gloss gave an in-depth visual/verbal presentation of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
process. The PUD process keeps the underlying zoning, creates an overlay by which a master plan is created, and
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2018
Page 2 of 3
this master plan then dictates the vision and character for the property. The PUD also commits the project to
certain design features and requests specifically what rights are to be vested. Density and use can then be
stipulated in that master plan. For each phase of the development there is a Project Development Plan similar to
what the Board would typically see. The presentation also covered public engagement wherein the acreage
threshold was the principal concern. The development community expressed that the 50-acre threshold is too
large. Public benefit criteria also drew comments and, from staff’s perspective, the code draft satisfactorily
addresses the issue by affording the Planning and Zoning Board and Council to act fairly and equitably when
evaluating a PUD application.
Clarifying questions
Member Carpenter asked if staff’s intention was to work on reducing to 20-acres and public outreach to bring it
back at a later date; Planner Gloss responded that was correct.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Max Moss, Developer, Montava - Mr. Moss spoke of investing his life in building this community. This is not just a
development, this is a commitment to community. He feels the PUD process is needed because of the uniqueness
of the Montava project. This is the first in the country. This project includes 100% zero energy ready home
standards, it has a large organic farm at its core, it is new urbanist in its design which intentionally creates
community and is designed as a multi-generational place, and integrated with the municipal utility to create a model
of energy conservation. This project is completely designed for water conservation and will be a model for
affordable housing.
Staff Response
None noted
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Hobbs asked, in relation to peer cities, if PUD’s were similar in the way that they are administrated and
what the conditions and requirements are within all the different PUD’s; Planning Manager Gloss stated that
generally they are very similar with only a few communities that have PUD’s that are not overlays and are
districts. They rezone the property to PUD which then creates a different right. Most of these communities have
code text that is very similar. The Code’s speak to community benefit, trade-off and that there is an expectation
that a PUD is an innovative, higher quality development.
Member Hansen feels that adding this tool will be valuable to the City of Fort Collins. His only concern is the
threshold size. Member Hansen asked what negative impacts might come fourth having a low or no threshold size
and if staff has discussed this; Planning Manager Gloss stated that staff has within the context or comments
received from Council at work session. The concern is some misunderstood what the PUD represents, and the
degree of flexibility that is afforded. Planning staff would like to take this cautiously, starting at the 50-acres and
then commit to coming back and investigating a lower threshold and making certain that all details are fleshed out.
Member Carpenter agrees with Member Hansen in that she hesitates to call this a new tool as Fort Collins had this
previously and is not exactly new, but does understand that many individuals were not here and aware of this. She
is tickled to see this coming back into place. She would like Planning staff to look at lowering the threshold as
well. To do this it might be that there is more community involvement especially from those around infill sites.
Member Whitley concurs with Member Carpenter in that a lower threshold would be interesting and useful.
Member Pardee thanked Planning Manager Gloss for the thorough and thoughtful review. She feels the PUD is an
excellent tool and is excited to see what can come out of this. She also concurs with fellow Board members in
support of consideration of a lower threshold.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2018
Page 3 of 3
Member Hobbs is not opposed to a lower threshold but is concerned about the buffering and transition around the
perimeter of the area that is going to have an effect on whether it is welcomed into the surrounding community. By
basic physics, the smaller the parcel, the more difficult it is physically and economically.
Member Hansen commented on concerns of going to a smaller parcel size. He does, however, feel it will bring
more community involvement at the master planning stage, and when a PDP or series of PDP’s come in, each of
those will have a public engagement process for comment and input. Member Hansen feels the PUD process will
only increase the public input that address the concerns.
Chair Schneider does not understand why the size has gone from 50 to 20 to 50-acres. With examples of smaller
sizes given at work session and how well they worked, he is glad to see the PUD coming back, but feels there are
opportunities for the 10 to 20-acre sites that potentially could us the process and be a better development and
community in the long run.
Chair Schneider called for a recommendation to Council.
Member Hansen wanted discussion around the recommendation to Council. He would like to propose no
minimum, as the process in and on itself will filter out projects that cannot and will not apply. Member Carpenter is
in support of no minimum. Chair Schneider asked Planning Manager Gloss for clarification on no minimum
standard that there would be at least three community conversations: two at the PUD stage and one at the PDP
stage; Planning Manager Gloss responded that was correct. Member Hobbs shared his philosophical concerns
and knows this will be decided at the Council level. He feels it is important to have a consensus on the Board and
is willing to follow the Board’s view point on this subject. The other concern Member Hobbs has with the PUD is
the timing. He feels it is oriented toward a couple of developments and not the way we are supposed to legislate
changes to the Land Use Code; by specific projects. Member Whitley agrees with Member Hobbs in regard for the
need of Board consensus; he will be supporting this item, at no minimum threshold. Chair Schneider stated that is
sounds as though everyone is ok with changing the minimum to zero. Chair Schneider called for a motion.
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Planned
Unit Development Overlay and Land Use code changes based on the agenda materials, the information and
materials presented during the work session, this hearing and the Board discussion on this item with the
following findings and that the Board recommends the application threshold be zero for the PUD
process. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0.
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 20, 2018
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation
Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
RE: Work Session Summary – June 19, 2018 re: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Ordinance
Attendees:
Cameron Gloss presented an update on the efforts to create Planned Unit Development (PUD)
development standards and corresponding review process and responded to questions from Council.
Six City Council members were present (Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Stephens, Overbeck and Martinez (call-
in)).
Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council:
Does Council have feedback about the proposed Land Use Code Amendment?
Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration at the upcoming adoption hearing?
Discussion Summary
• General consensus that an ordinance providing a 50-acre minimum threshold size is appropriate
at this time.
• Overall, there was a concern about proceeding with a PUD option for parcels less than 50 acres
in size, given that:
o Parcels less than 50 acres are more likely to be located in areas with a greater number
of abutting or nearby residents.
o Outreach has not been targeted to potentially affected neighborhoods surrounding the
these smaller sites.
o The process to develop the draft standards has proceeded rapidly.
• Further community engagement is necessary to better understand potential concerns with
lowering the parcel size threshold.
ATTACHMENT 5
June 19, 2018 Council Work Session Summary Page 2
PUD Code
• The community has a long-standing history with Planned Unit Development regulations that is
proven through numerous high quality PUD projects.
Follow-up Item:
Staff will provide a follow-up memo outlining the schedule and scope for additional opportunities to
engage the public in a dialogue about a lower parcel size threshold and the implications to existing
neighborhoods and districts.
1
Planned Unit Development
Cameron Gloss
July 3, 2018
ATTACHMENT 6
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.
2
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
6
Size Threshold
7
Size Threshold
8
Parcels 640+ acres
9
Subject to City Council Review
due to policy implications
PUD’s in Peer Cities
Peer Cities PUD Size Threshold Point System
10
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 acre No
Loveland, CO Yes none No
Boulder, CO No N/A No
Thornton, CO Yes none No
Denver, CO Yes none No
Longmont, CO Yes
10 acres ‐ non‐infill, 20 acres ‐ infill,
none ‐ overlays No
Example: Oak-Cottonwood Farm (Miramont)
11
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
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
12
Community Engagement
• Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions/Hearing
Feb 8, May 11, May 31, June 21
• City Council Work Session
June 19
• Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)
May 8
• Property Owners/Developers
13
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 091, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, AND 5 OF THE LAND USE CODE
REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have
continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain
issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Planned Unit Development Overlay regulations is to
provide an avenue for property owners with large and complex development projects to achieve
flexibility in site design through customized uses, densities, and Land Use and non-Land Use
Code development standards in return for significant public benefits not available through
existing development procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development Overlay regulations are adopted pursuant to
the City’s home rule powers and Title 24, Article 67, Colorado Revised Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 1.4.9(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its
entirety.
1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text
. . .
(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"
-2-
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.
Section 3. That Section 2.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.1.1 - Decision Maker and Administrative Bodies
The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Community
Planning and Environmental Services Director (the "Director") are frequently referenced in this
Land Use Code. Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of the City Code for descriptions of
these and other decision makers and administrative bodies, and their powers, duties, membership
qualifications and related matters.
The Director or the Planning and Zoning Board will consider, review and decide all development
applications for permitted uses (overall development plans, PUD Overlays 640 acres or less,
basic development review plans, project development plans and final plans) according to the
provisions of this Land Use Code. For those development applications subject to basic
development review, the Director (or the Director's subordinate) is the designated decision
maker. For those development applications subject to administrative review (sometimes referred
to as "Type 1 review"), the Director is the designated decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(1)).
For those development applications subject to P&Z review (sometimes referred to as "Type 2
review"), the Planning and Zoning Board is the designated decision maker (see Section
2.2.7(A)(2)). For PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, the City Council is the designated
decision maker after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. The permitted
use list for a particular zone district and the development review procedure "steps" for a
particular development application identifies which review, Type 1 or Type 2, will apply. For
building permit applications, the Building and Zoning Director is the decision maker (see Section
2.7.3). (See "Overview of Development Review Procedures," Section 2.1.2, below, for a further
description of different levels of review.)
Section 4. That Section 2.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.1.2 - Overview of Development Review Procedures
This article establishes the development review procedures for different types of development
applications and building permits within the city.
(A) Where is the project located? An applicant must first locate the proposed project
on the Zoning Map. Once the proposed project has been located, the applicable
zone district must be identified from the Zoning Map and legend. Then, by
referring to Article 4, District Standards, of this Land Use Code, the applicant will
-3-
find the district standards which apply to the zone district in which the proposed
project is located. The city's staff is available to assist applicants in this regard.
(B) What uses are proposed? Next, an applicant must identify which uses will be
included in the proposed project. If all of the applicant's proposed uses are listed
as permitted uses in the applicable zone district for the project, then the applicant
is ready to proceed with a development application for a permitted use. If any of
the applicant's proposed uses are not listed as permitted uses in the applicable
zone district for the project, then the applicant must either eliminate the
nonpermitted uses from his or her proposal, seek the addition of a new permitted
use pursuant to Section 1.3.4, or seek a text amendment to this Land Use Code or
a rezoning amendment to the Zoning Map pursuant to Division 2.9, or seek
approval of a PUD Overlay pursuant to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29. Any use not
listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is deemed a prohibited use
in that zone district, unless it has been permitted pursuant to Section 1.3.4 for a
particular development application or permitted as part of an approved PUD
Overlay. Again, the city's staff will be available to assist applicants with their
understanding of the zone districts and permitted uses.
(C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a
development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type
of development application should be selected and submitted. All development
proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved
through the following development applications: first through a project
development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If
the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development
plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required
prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development
plans, PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans are the four three
(3) types of development applications for permitted uses. Each successive
development application for a development proposal must build upon the
previously approved development application by providing additional details
(through the development application submittal requirements) and by meeting
additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General Development
Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Overall
development plans and project development plans may be consolidated into one
(1) application for concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the
provisions of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of
these types of development applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3.
(D) Who reviews the development application? Once an applicant has determined the
type of development application to be submitted, he or she must determine the
appropriate level of development review required for the development
application. To make this determination, the applicant must refer to the provisions
of the applicable zone district in Article 4 and the provisions pertaining to the
appropriate development application. These provisions will determine whether the
permitted uses and the development application are subject to basic development
review, administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or Planning and Zoning Board
-4-
review ("Type 2 review"), or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays
greater than 640 acres. Identification of the required level of development review
will, in turn, determine which decision maker, the Director in the case of
administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or the Planning and Zoning Board in the
case of Planning and Zoning Board review ("Type 2 review"), or the City Council
for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, will review and make the final decision
on the development application. When a development application contains both
Type 1 and Type 2 uses, it will be processed as a Type 2 review.
(E) How will the development application be processed? The review of overall
development plans, PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans will
each generally follow the same procedural "steps" regardless of the level of
review (administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review). The
common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2 establish a
twelve-step process equally applicable to all overall development plans, project
development plans and final plans.
The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures are the
same for each type of development application, whether subject to basic
development review, administrative review, or Planning and Zoning Board
review, or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays greater than 640
acres unless an exception to the common development review procedures is
expressly called for in the particular development application requirements of this
Land Use Code. In other words, each overall development plan, each project
development plan and each final plan will be subject to the twelve-step common
procedure. The twelve (12) steps include: (1) conceptual review; (2)
neighborhood meeting; (3) development application submittal; (4) determination
of sufficiency; (5) staff report; (6) notice; (7) public hearing; (8) standards; (9)
conditions of approval; (10) amendments; (11) lapse; and (12) appeals.
However, Step 1, conceptual review, applies only to the initial development
application submittal for a development project (i.e., overall development plan or
PUD Overlay when required, or project development plan when neither an overall
development plan nor a PUD Overlay is not required). Subsequent development
applications for the same development project are not subject to Step 1,
conceptual review.
Moreover, Step 2, neighborhood meeting, applies only to certain development
applications subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review. Step
2, neighborhood meeting, does not apply to development applications subject to
basic development review or administrative review. Step 3, application submittal
requirements, applies to all development applications. Applicants shall submit
items and documents in accordance with a master list of submittal requirements as
established by the City Manager. Overall development plans must comply with
only certain identified items on the master list, while PUD Overlays, project
development plans must include different items from the master list, and final
plans must include different items from the master listas well. This master list is
intended to assure consistency among submittals by using a "building block"
-5-
approach, with each successive development application building upon the
previous one for that project. City staff is available to discuss the common
procedures with the applicant.
(F) What if the development proposal doesn't fit into one of the types of development
applications discussed above? In addition to the four three (3) development
applications for permitted uses, the applicant may seek approval for other types of
development applications, including development applications for a modification
of standards (Division 2.8), an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code
and/or the Zoning Map (Division 2.9), a hardship variance (Division 2.10), an
appeal of an administrative decision (Division 2.11) or other requests. These other
types of development applications will be reviewed according to applicable steps
in the common development review procedures.
(G) Is a building permit required? The next step after approval of a final plan is to
apply for a Building Permit. Most construction requires a Building Permit. This is
a distinct and separate process from a development application. The twelve (12)
steps of the common development review procedures must be followed for the
Building Permit process. Procedures and requirements for submitting a Building
Permit application are described in Division 2.7.
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council regarding
complex development proposals? If an application for approval of a development
plan also entails City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment
to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action by the City
Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use Code, and if a land
development or renewal project is determined by the City Manager to be of
community-wide impact, the applicant for such approval may request that the City
Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments
from the City Council regarding the applicant's overall proposal in order to assist
the developer in determining whether to file a development application or
annexation petition. All pre-application hearings scheduled by the City Manager
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 hearing and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date
of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance
the City's estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid
that exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the
hearing, members of the City Council may, but shall not be required to, comment
on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any
Councilmember with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate
any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the
proposal. Only one (1) such hearing may be requested.
(IH) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record" about a development
plan prior to the decision makers' formal review of the application? No.
Development plans must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
-6-
provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to approve or
deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the
information provided at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all
persons who may be affected by the review and approval of a development plan
an opportunity to respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the
plan will be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision
makers, decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should avoid
communications with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan
prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate.
Section 5. That Section 2.1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.1.3 - Types of Development Applications
(A) Applicability. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must
be processed and approved through the following development applications: a
basic development review; or through a project development plan (Division 2.4),
then through a final plan (Division 2.5), then through a development construction
permit (Division 2.6) and then through a building permit review (Division 2.7). If
the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development
plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required
prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. A PUD Master Plan
associated with a PUD Overlay may be substituted for an overall development
plan (Divisions 2.15 and 4.29). Each successive development application for a
development proposal must build upon the previously approved development
application by providing additional details (through the development application
submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards
(contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District
Standards of Article 4).
Permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses subject to
Planning and Zoning Board review listed in the applicable zone district set forth
in Article 4, District Standards, shall be processed through an overall
development plan, a project development plan or a final plan. If any use not listed
as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is included in a development
application, it may also be processed as an overall development plan, project
development plan or final plan, if such proposed use has been approved, or is
concurrently submitted for approval, in accordance with the requirements for an
amendment to the text of this Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map, Division
2.9, or in accordance with the requirements for the addition of a permitted use
under Section 1.3.4. Development applications for permitted uses which seek to
modify any standards contained in the General Development Standards in Article
3, or the District Standards in Article 4, shall be submitted by the applicant and
processed as a modification of standards under Division 2.8. Hardship variances
to standards contained in Article 3, General Development Standards, or Article 4,
District Standards, shall be processed as hardship variances by the Zoning Board
-7-
of Appeals pursuant to Division 2.10. Appeals of administrative/staff decisions
shall be according to Division 2.11. PUD overlays shall be processed pursuant to
Divisions 2.15, 4.29.
. . .
(F) PUD Overlay.
(1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the PUD Overlay is to provide an
avenue for property owners with larger and more complex development
projects to achieve flexibility in site design by means of customized uses,
densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development
standards. In return for such flexibility, significant public benefits not
available through traditional development procedures must be provided by
the development. A PUD Master Plan is the written document associated
with a PUD Overlay and the PUD Master Plan sets forth the general
development plan and the customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code
and non-Land Use Code development standards. An approved PUD
Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon
the underlying zone district requirements.\
(2) Applicability. A PUD Overlay is available to properties or collections of
contiguous properties fifty (50) acres or greater in size. Refer to Divisions
2.15 and 4.29 for specific requirements and review of PUD Overlays and
PUD Master Plans.
Section 6. That a new Subsection 2.1.6 is hereby added to Division 2.1 of the Land
Use Code and reads in its entirety as follows:
2.1.6 Optional Pre-Application Review
(A) Optional City Council Pre-Application Review of Complex Development
Proposals:
A potential applicant for development other than a PUD Overlay may request that
the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary
comments from the City Council regarding the overall proposal in order to assist
the proposed applicant in determining whether to file a development application
or annexation petition. Only one (1) pre-application hearing pursuant to this
Subsection (A) may be requested. The following criteria must be satisfied for
such a hearing to be held:
(a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set forth
in Article 2, Division 2.2.
-8-
(b) The proposed application for approval of a development plan must require
City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action by the
City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use Code
(c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed
development will have a community-wide impact.
(B) Optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review:
This optional review is available to potential PUD applicants that have not begun
any step of the Common Development Review Procedures for Development
Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Such review is intended to
provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the
Planning and Zoning Board for PUD Overlays between 50 and 640 acres in size,
or to City Council for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres in size, regarding the
proposed development including how site constraints will be addressed and issues
of controversy or opportunities related to the development. 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 affected property owners. In order for a pre-application
hearing to be held, the Director must determine in writing that the proposed PUD
will have a community-wide impact. Only one (1) pre-application hearing
pursuant to this Subsection (B) may be requested.
(C) Notice and Hearing Procedure.
All preapplication hearings under above Subsections (A) or (B) 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 hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the
City's estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that
exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant.
(D) Input Non-Binding, Record.
The Planning and Zoning Board or City Council as applicable pursuant to above
Subsections (A) or (B) may, but shall not be required to, comment on the
proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Planning
and Zoning Board or City Council 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 development review
related to all or part of the property that was the subject of the optional review.
-9-
Section 7. That Section ___ of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
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 so long as the amendments
are consistent with the existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and
changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following:
. . .
(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:
. . .
(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
-10-
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.
. . .
(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.
. . .
-11-
Section 8. That Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse
. . .
(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 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
-12-
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
-13-
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.
. . .
Section 9. That Section 2.4.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
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:
. . .
(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.
. . .
Section 10. That Division 2.15 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and reenacted
to read in its entirety as follows:
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
acres or greater in size.
(C) Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable.
-14-
(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:
a. Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD
Overlay applications between 50 and 640 acres;
b. City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications greater
than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning 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.
-15-
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD
Overlay between 50 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).
Section 11. That Section 4.29 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and reenacted
to read in its entirety as follows:
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
-16-
(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.
(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 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 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;
-17-
(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 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 applicable 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.
-18-
(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
applicable purposes, and advance the applicable 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.
(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:
-19-
(a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following:
1. The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD
Overlay; or
2. 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:
1. The written request of all real property owners within the PUD
Overlay; or
2. The written request of the original applicant for the approved PUD
Master Plan provided the following conditions are met:
a. The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal
control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and
b. The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan
without the consent of other owners of real property within
the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant
or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property;
or
3. 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.
-20-
(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:
1. Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan;
2. Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan;
or
3. 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 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
requested in connection with a PUD Master Plan. A request for such variances shall be
processed in accordance with and subject to the standards applicable to the variance.
Variances so requested and approved prior to the approval of a PUD Master Plan may be
incorporated into and approved as a part of the PUD Master Plan, and if so incorporated
and approved, 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. 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.
-21-
Section 12. That the definition “Development application” contained in Section 5.1.2
of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Development application shall mean any application or request submitted in the form
required by the Land Use Code and shall include only applications for an overall
development plan, a PUD Overlay, a project development plan, a final plan, a Building
Permit, a modification of standards, amendments to the text of this Code or the Zoning
Map, a hardship variance or an appeal from administrative decisions prescribed in
Article 2.
Section 13. That the definition “Development application for permitted use” contained
in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Development application for permitted use shall mean a development application
submitted in the form required by this Code to the City for an overall development
plan, a project development plan, a final plan or a Building Permit, including only uses
described as permitted uses in the applicable zone district. A PUD Overlay is also
considered to be a development application for a permitted use even though the PUD
Overlay may request uses that are not permitted in the applicable underlying zone
district.
Section 14. That the definition “Development plan” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the City for approval of a
permitted use which depicts the details of a proposed development. Development
plan includes an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan,
and/or an amendment of any such plan. A PUD Overlay is also considered to be a
development plan even though the PUD Overlay may request uses that are not
permitted in the applicable underlying zone district.
Section 15. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of two new definitions, “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay” and “Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan” which read in their entirety as follows:
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
-22-
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).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING POLICY REVISIONS TO THE LARIMER
COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2001, the City Council adopted the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards ("LCUASS"), with the adoption of Ordinance No. 186, 2000; AND
WHEREAS, Council adopted the current version of LCUASS in February 2007, and such
version has been subsequently amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, LCUASS Section 1.6.2.A. states that policy revisions to LCUASS may be
made by City Council by ordinance or resolution provided a public hearing regarding the policy
revision is held and City staff makes a recommendation on the policy revision to City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the LCUASS policy revision is proposed in connection with the proposed
adoption of planned unit development Land Use Code amendments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on July 3, 2018, at which
City staff provided a recommendation to Council on the LCUASS policy revision and members
of the public were provided an opportunity to provide input, finds that the proposed LCUASS
revision is a policy revision applicable to the City and it is in the best interests of the citizens of
the City to adopt the revision.
Section 3. That Section 1.9.4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards is
hereby amended to read as follows:
1.9.4 Variances and Appeals Processes
A. Variances
Any design that does not conform to these Standards must be approved by the Local Entity
Engineer. Variances from these Standards will be considered administratively on a case-by-case
basis following a written request for a variance prepared by a Professional Engineer and
submitted to the Local Entity Engineer. If the special district, developer, contractor, or utility
responsible to the Local Entity for public improvements desires to design and construct such
improvements in variance to criteria in these standards, such variance(s) shall be identified in a
written attachment to the initial submittal of construction plans to the Local Entity Engineer. The
-2-
design submitted for review shall show the variance. To assist with their plan preparation,
designers may submit variance requests, along with sufficient documentation to support the
variance, prior to formal submittal of construction plans for informal advisory consideration.
Such advisory consideration shall not be binding on the Local Entity Engineer, but may help to
guide the requestor in the preparation of plans. Variances may be considered by either of the
following two administrative processes:
a. Variances requested as part of an application for approval of a preliminary plat
only shall be shown on the preliminary plat (or on the preliminary construction
plans) and shall also be specifically substantiated and justified in a letter
addressed to the Local Entity Engineer. In Loveland (city limits only), variances
requested as part of a combined application for approval of a preliminary plat and
preliminary development plan shall be described (complete with technical
justification) in the regulatory procedures section on the preliminary development
plan. In Fort Collins (city limits only), variances may be processed in conjunction
with any development application for a permitted use as such term is defined in
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
b. Variances requested as part of the submittal for approval of final public
improvements construction plans shall be shown in the plans and shall also be
specifically substantiated and justified in a letter addressed to the Local Entity
Engineer. A summary of all approved variances shall be listed in the general notes
on the approved plans.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of
July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
2.15(C)(2) Describes Review
Procedures
Adds an additional neighborhood meeting for PUD
master plans like the existing APU procedures.
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.