HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/12/2013-AdjournedFebruary 12, 2013
t
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 12,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Manvel, Ohlson, Troxell, and Weitkunat.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmembers Horak, Kottwitz, and Poppaw arrived at 6:04 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Ordinance No. 023, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the
Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for
Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will prohibit placing corrugated cardboard boxes/packaging in trash containers for
disposal in landfills by any type of waste generator in Fort Collins, including commercial,
industrial, and residential customers.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The proposal to restrict cardboard from being placed in the waste stream originated as a strategy
in 2005 to increase the Fort Collins community's ability to meet our goal of diverting 50% of trash
from landfill disposal, as well as to help meet goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Over
time, as waste diversion rates in Fort Collins have risen, so has public interest in recovering even
more materials of value that continue to be discarded, and the idea oftaking a regulatory approach
continued to be discussed.
The City's 2008 Climate Action Plan included the regulation of cardboard disposal' as an
implementation strategy that will reduce trash by an estimated 12, 000 tons/year, which represents
9% of the waste stream that Fort Collins sends for landfill disposal. These 12, 000 new tons of
recycling per year will also eliminate the emission of 42,000 short tons/year of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e), a greenhouse gas, based on the emissions factor for cardboard recycling used
in US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)Taste Reduction Model (WARM). Thisordinance
is estimated to quadruple the amount ofcardboard (currently 4,200 tons/year) captured through the
community's recycling efforts.
316
February 12, 2013
Two main issues drive the discussion towards cardboard restrictions. First is the long and active
history of education, outreach, and incentive programs already conducted by the City to increase
recycling. For twentyyears, local efforts have been abundant and varied, from publicity campaigns
and advertising, requirements for trash hauling companies to offer curbside recycling, to a City -
sponsored drop-off facility and community recognition for businesses that integrate recycling as
part of their Climate Wise membership. With only about 25% of the cardboard in the community
currently being recycled, arriving at a decision to place a ban on cardboard in the waste stream is
a logical "next step "for local government to realize community goals and values.
The second issue is the relative magnitude of cardboard in the waste stream. Despite being a highly
recyclable commodity, many trash dumpsters around town are routinelyfull ofcardboard boles and
packaging. Landfill managers concur, stating they observe that cardboard seems to continue to
stream into local landfills. Waste characterizations conducted by Larimer County every 5-10 years
measure cardboard and other discarded paper at 35% of the Larimer County landfill's contents.
Among all the recyclables that are collected in the City's programs, cardboard is perhaps the most
easily recognized. It doesn't require lengthy explanations about "chasing arrow" code numbers
to identify cardboard, and it is also one of the most ubiquitous discards that are generated by nearly
every type of business, or residence.
Local Building Code Green Amendments that became effective in 2012 now require cardboard
recycling at building sites; awareness and successful implementation by the Fort Collins
construction industry has grown steadily. Disposal of cardboard is banned by nine states, a
number of communities and counties in the U.S., as well as Washington D. C. Fort Collins has had
the experience of enacting a local disposal restriction, with a ban on electronic waste that was
adopted in 2006.
FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS
From an economic standpoint, restrictions on cardboard disposal will add more state and local
revenue from the sales of cardboard for recycling and by creating more jobs in the
collection/processing industry. Burying discarded cardboard in landfills, on the other hand,
permanently squanders a resource that is valued at $50/ton or more in today's commodity markets.
Diverting more discarded material into the recycling system avoids filling up local landfills
unnecessarily, including the Larimer County Landfill, which is partly owned by the City.
Lengthening the life of Larimer County Landfill is a prudent financial approach that will save
taxpayers, at minimum, an estimated $35 million in construction costs for a new landfill in the
future.
Costs to implement a cardboard disposal ban are not anticipated to be excessively burdensome. No -
cost recycling opportunities exist that allow both residents and businesses to recycle. Due to Fort
Collins'Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Ordinance, residential customers do not pay extra for curbside
recycling — which includes cardboard — because the cost for recycling services is required to be
bundled into the costs for trash service. Residents and businesses alike utilize free public drop-off
317
February 12, 2013
recycling centers operated by the County (co -located at the Lorimer County Landfill), and the City
of Fort Collins (1702 Riverside; open seven days a week during daylight hours).
Additionally, many entities already subscribe to recycling services. Any customer, residential or
commercial, who already receives recycling services that is described as "single stream "collection
will be unaffected by new trash restrictions because the single -stream recycling program in Fort
Collins includes cardboard. For commercial types of customers that generate large amounts of
cardboard, such as grocery stores and "big box " retailers, it has been standard practicefor the past
15-20 years to subscribe to cardboard recycling services. Often these generators use compacting
units to save on costs, or even bale their cardboard themselves.for delivery to buyers in Denver.
The PAYT Ordinance, however, does not apply to commercial or multi family (41FU) accounts.
While haulers are obliged to provide recycling to these customers whenever it is requested, they are
allowed to charge a fee for the service. Prices vary among haulers and among types of clients; often
the price is considered proprietary information. City staff estimates it costs $15-30 per month to
pay a hauler for cardboard recycling at a small or mid -sized business. By separating cardboard
from the trash dumpster or bin, however, customers may be able to reduce the size and/or collection
frequency oftheir trash dumpsters and therefore can offset recycling costs through lower trash bills.
Compliance with a new ordinance is the responsibility of the generator of the materials. However,
hauling companies will also be required to take initiative in meeting the intent of the Code by
declining to remove trash from customers when a trash container/bin is found to be more than 25%
full of cardboard by volume. The City will rely on service providers to inform customers about the
ordinance and urge them to sign up for recycling services offered by the hauler. Haulers'
employees are not expected to remove cardboard materials from trash containers, as a matter of
safety; this is a specific concern expressed to the City, in light ofever-rising insurance costs for the
trash industry.
Enforcement will be carried out on a complaint basis or when City employees observe cardboard
in a generator's waste stream. With an emphasis placed on warnings and education about the
importance of recycling cardboard during the first 12 months, enforcement will occur gradually,
and only in the face of egregious or repeat offenses. Costs that will accrue to the City as a result
of establishing cardboard disposal restrictions largely fall into the enforcement category; Code
Enforcement staff will be trained to take appropriate enforcement actions by writing either a
warning ticket or citation.for violation ofthe Code. However, no additional Code Enforcement staff
hiring will be necessary.
Environmental Services staff will expand outreach to businesses and MFUs through the City's
Waste Reduction and Recycling Program (WRAP). Assistance will be available for new -to -
recycling companies and MFUs in developing their recycling capabilities. Analyses of MFU
recyclingprograms were recently completed bystaffshowing that among Fort Collins' mid -to -large
sized apartment complexes, 72% already provide recycling services to their tenants. This leaves
about 20 of the larger multi family complexes that do not yet have recycling, which will be a priority
group for staff in conducting outreach activities. Staff will also actively work with those customers
318
February 12, 2013
for whom physical barriers - space constraints, too -small trash enclosures, and tight alley access
— make it especially challenging to initiate cardboard recycling.
Costs for expanded outreach services will be absorbed in WRAP's existing program budget for
2013-14. After conducting assessments for specific customers, staff will help prepare tailored on -
site plans, offer training for business' employees, and potentially locating funds to expedite the
transition to recycling. For instance, if tenants at a cluster of businesses are willing to collaborate,
a good choice might be to lease compacting equipment that makes it easier to store cardboard for
collection/recycling.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An ordinance that prohibits disposal of cardboard in the community's waste stream will reduce the
amount of trash that is sent to landfills from Fort Collins. An initial result, therefore, will be an
extension to the life spans ofseveral landfills in the area. Ofparticular interest is the stewardship
of the Larimer County Landfill, jointly owned by the City of Fort Collins (50% of the original site
of the Larimer County Landfill, located on the north half ofSection 9, T6N, R69Won South Taft Hill
Road), Larimer County (25%), and the City ofLoveland (25%). Postponing the need to replace the
aging landfill is an important consideration for regional taxpayers, who, in thefuture may be faced
with a decision whether to allocate money (minimum $35 million in today's dollars) to construct
new facilities for waste disposal.
As the cardboard ordinance becomes fully realized,.an estimated 12, 000 tonslyearofcardboard will
be diverted from the trash and into the recycling stream. This diverted material will reduce the
amount of trash generated in Fort Collins by 9% (from 130,000 tons, down to 118,000 tons per
year). Fort Collins' waste diversion will therefore rise by an estimated 611o, accelerating our
progress toward meeting the adopted goal of 50% diversion.
Additionally, using formulae provided by the US EPA for modeling greenhouse gases that are
avoided through recycling activities, the cardboard ordinance will have the ultimate effect of
preventing 42, 000 short tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) from being emitted to the
atmosphere. By taking this action, Fort Collins will also accelerate progress at meeting the
community's goals for greenhouse gas reductions.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Support for cardboard restrictions was voted on by the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and by
the Air Quality Advisory Board at their respective meetings in November, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
During fall of 2012, meetings were held with members of the trash/recycling hauling industry,
Chamber of Commerce members and staff, and a variety of City staff to discuss the implications of
new restrictions on cardboard disposal. Newspaper articles and columns, television bulletins, and
spotlights on City webpages and utility bill inserts were published, and a public Open House was
319
February 12, 2013
conducted on November 8, 2012, to introduce the proposal to the community. Comments from
citizens and from specially affected interests were reported during a work session with the City
Council on November 27.
A roundtable meeting was recently held in January that was attended by a cross-section of 15
members of Fort Collins' business community, including small -to -medium-sized businesses,
property management companies, the Downtown Development Authority, and managers of multi-
family housing. A summary of comments and questions raised by this `focus group " is provided
in Attachment 3. "
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, discussed the Ordinance,which is designed to prohibit
the disposal of cardboard in the waste stream. Meetings with key stakeholders and the public have
been ongoing since the fall of 2012. In 2008, the Climate Action Plan Committee listed a cardboard
ban in its recommendations as a significant way to slow climate change. Gordon stated this ban
would increase the City's diversion rate by 6%, based on 2011 data, and could increase the lifespan
of the landfill by up to one year over a fifteen -year period. Gordon discussed concerns voiced by
businesses and multi -family unit owners.
Gordon stated the Ordinance would apply to all trash accounts and compliance is the responsibility
of the owner or occupant of the property that generates the cardboard. Waste haulers would be
allowed to refuse to dump a trash load deemed to be more than 25% cardboard, and the customer
would still be billed for that service. Gordon stated enforcement of this Ordinance would be gradual
over the next year, with education and outreach being the first step.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned what legal authorization the City has to put forth
this regulation. He stated private enterprise should effectuate change and stated there should be
some idea of the outcome due to a legislative prohibition.
John Anderson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported cardboard recycling and adoption of
the Ordinance.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, opposed adoption ofthe Ordinance and requested additional
information regarding the holistic benefit to the community.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the City's current recycling program is adopted by Ordinance. Gordon
replied the list of materials is renewed every year, by the City Manager, per Ordinance. She noted
beverage cartons were recently added and staff will be asking that those be designated.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why prohibitions were not part of the previous recycling Ordinance.
Gordon replied Section 15 of the City Code includes the "pay as you throw" Ordinance. When
Council elected to ban the disposal of electronic waste in 2007, it was embedded in that Section and
became a requirement for haulers, as a condition of their license, to not accept electronic waste.
320
February 12, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the current recycling Ordinance bans glass, paper, and other items from
the waste stream. Gordon replied in the negative. At this point, only electronic waste is banned and
this proposal would be the second such ban.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why a ban on cardboard disposal is proposed, if other recyclables
are not proposed for a ban. Gordon replied a ban on other materials is always an option. Cardboard
is a significant amount of material in the waste stream, is very recognizable, and has a well -
established collection system.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated Chapter 15 is only about licensing trash haulers; therefore,
requirements that apply to the general -public, such as this proposal, are placed in Chapter 12 with
other general provisions relating to public behavior regarding waste and recycling.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the electronic waste section of this proposed Ordinance.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied that reference was in an earlier section of that part of the Code
and seemed to fit better with this new language.
Councilmember Troxell asked how alley projects have been designed to incorporate this type of
requirement. Gordon replied the Land Use Code was modified in 2003 to require that any new
commercial or multi -family complex must have enough room in its trash enclosure to accommodate
recycling. The Downtown Development Association has put new enlarged trash enclosures in
redesigned alleys in Old Town; however, there are areas not yet retrofitted with enough space to
collect recyclables.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a more holistic approach would be better, and if this is the highest
and best approach. Gordon replied the other materials flowing in high rates to the landfill are
organic.
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director, noted there will be reuse factors in these
education efforts as well.
Councilmember Troxell asked if any analysis was done regarding the economic impact to
businesses, residents, or trash haulers. Gordon replied the cost of service was examined and adding
a cardboard recycling service was estimated to be an additional $15 to $35 per month. However,
trash bills are often decreased as containers can often be downsized if cardboard is not included in
the trash container.
Councilmember Troxell asked when this Ordinance would take effect. Gordon replied it would take
effect ten days -following Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked when citations would begin. City Attorney Roy replied the
Ordinance would take effect ten days after Second Reading; however, there is discretion on the part
of enforcement officials as to whether or not to issue citations. He stated Council could write in a
grace period on Second Reading.
321
February 12, 2013
Councilmember Troxell asked about the cost to the City of this program. Gordon replied the City's
enforcement cost will be borne by the Code Enforcement staff that are in the field making
observations about all types of violations. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, has
stated this will not increase staffing costs in her department. Environmental Services staff will
respond to complaints.
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, clarified existing staff can accommodate the need for
enforcement without adding additional cost.
Councilmember Troxell asked for a definition of cardboard and stated this proposal does not appear
ready for implementation. Hendee replied staff will return with additional implementation detail
prior to Second Reading. An education program, as indicated, will be implemented.
Councilmember Troxell asked if owners or occupants are responsible for compliance. Gordon
replied letters regarding infractions will go to both the property owner and occupant, as per current
Code enforcement regulations. City Attorney Roy noted Code Enforcement staff members have the
discretion to issue the citation to the appropriate party; citations can be written to the owner,
occupant, or both.
Councilmember Manvel discussed the enforcement schedule and stated the proposed twelvemonths
of education prior to the issuance of warnings seems excessive. Gordon replied staff s intent is to
work closely with affected interests and provide support, education, training, and signage for quite
some time. There is the ability to provide additional details regarding the number of warnings or
reminders issued prior to a citation.
Councilmember Kottwitz commended the education aspects of the proposal and asked for additional
information regarding the trash haulers' potential additional costs regarding education campaigns.
Gordon replied the City shares its educational materials with the trash haulers. These components
will likely fold into the messaging from trash haulers and trash haulers should not incur much
additional cost.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested additional information on those costs prior to Second Reading
and suggested a possible reimbursement for trash haulers regarding the education aspects.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern with enforcement at multi -family units and suggested
the possibility of not including multi -family units for some period of time. Gordon replied Council
may wish to advise staff on this issue but noted about sixty of the city's roughly eighty mid- to
large -size apartment complexes have recycling programs.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern about the multi -family unit enforcement. She asked
about box breakdown and asked if the difference in effectiveness of prohibition versus a volunteer
cardboard recycling program was examined. Gordon replied the current situation is a volunteer
program and cardboard has been accepted in the curbside program since 2007.
322
February 12, 2013
Councilmember Kottwitz requested regular updates to Council regarding the effectiveness of the
program and asked about reuse aspects of the program. Gordon replied programs such as box
exchanges for people who have just moved or are moving.are included in the proposal.
Mayor Weitkunat asked how this program will impact cardboard recycling at the City's new
integrated recycling facility. Gordon replied the new facility will have two sections: the free drop-
off recycling area at Rivendell School, and the new section for the hard -to -recycle items which will
be staffed by a contractor. This section will have a fee associated with its use; however the Larimer
County facility pays for large volumes of cardboard and individuals will be directed there if this is
their situation. -
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 023, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked who will be the responsible party for cardboard recycling at
construction sites. Gordon replied the Building Inspection department has oversight over that
program. Violations found by their inspectors typically go to the construction company. Since
January of 2012, construction sites have been required to recycle cardboard, among other materials.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that a number of departments in the City seem to be
enforcing the same types of regulations. He stated the City needs to take a more holistic view of its
waste streams.
Councilmember Manvel commended staff for its work on the item.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion and requested assurance that there will
be citations issued.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would like Fort Collins to be a leader in terms of holistic benefit
to the city.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion, but stated more work needs to be done
regarding the implementation plan.
Councilmember Kottwitz encouraged staff to examine programs already in place in the private
sector. She stated she would not support the motion as there may be some additional fine-tuning
necessary.
City Attorney Roy read into the record the additional Whereas clause added per the direction of the
Leadership Planning Team.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Ohlson, Weitkunat, Poppaw and Manvel.
Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
323
February 12, 2013
Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay
District Pilot, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.First Reading qf Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a
Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or Clarify
Certain "General Standards " and "Purpose" Statements Related to the Planned Overlay
Development District.
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide
contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since
it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering
permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five
application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to
apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally
proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth.
Properties within 1,000feet ofthe Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have
been removed from the pilot.
Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC).
These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the
LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Development ofa flexible zoning tool for infill development and redevelopment is listed as a "near -
term action" in the 2011 City Plan update and was a priority project in the Planning and Zoning
Board's 2011 work program. Staff has worked closely with stakeholders and the Planning and
Zoning Board throughout 2011-2012 to assess the challenges associated with infill/redevelopment
in terms of the existing Land Use Code (L UC) and review process. Based on these discussions, staff
has crafted the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a new regulatory approach that
offers performance -based development flexibility.
What is the PDOD?
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is intended to provide an alternative to
conventional land development regulations and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes the
context ofsurrounding development into consideration. It blends the planning concept ofPlanned
Unit Developments (also known as "PUDs') with performance -based zoning to provide flexibility
to infill development or redevelopment projects challenged by existing site constraints. A unique
324
February 12, 2013
aspect of the PDOD is how it infuses the principles of City Plan into private sector development
using a performance matrix. The matrix is a menu of site and building considerations that
encourage an applicant to think beyond minimum LUCregulations and incorporate the community's
broad sustainability goals into the project. Additional detail about the purpose of the PDOD and
how it is designed can be found in Attachment 1.
Pilot Details
Until spring2012, the intention was to consider adopting the PDOD permanently as a new, optional
zoning overlay. However, because the PDOD is a new and unique tool for Fort Collins in terms of
regulating infill/redevelopmentprojects, staffis proposing that it first be tested on a temporary basis
as a pilot. The benefits ofpursuing the pilot include the following:
Allows for real -life project test -cases that will provide staff and stakeholders the opportunity
to make a valuable evaluation of the review process.
Provides time to consider any necessary changes to the PDOD that would improve it.
Determines whether the PDOD is a viable. tool for in 1111redevelopment.
Adopting the pilot Ordinance allows for temporary implementation ofthe PDOD. Projects that are
within the defined boundary area would have six months to submit a Detailed Development Plan
(DDP -the PDOD equivalent to a Project Development Plan). The ability to submit a DDP would
end after the six month period and, at that point, the focus would be on completing the review
process for those projects and evaluating whether the PDOD process worked as intended. Six
months was chosen because it is a reasonable timeframe for eligible projects to submit but, at the
same time, is restrictive enough that the City would not be overwhelmed with PDOD projects.
Furthermore, the pilot limits the number of applications accepted within the six month pilot. Only
five DDP applications will be accepted, and the Community Development and Neighborhood
Services Director has the ability to no longer accept applications ifstaff's capacity to adequately
review the projects is reached.
Additional highlights of the Ordinance include:
• Establishes the option for City Council to extend the pilot should there be an insufficient
number of projects submitted to properly evaluate the PDOD.
• Commits staff to report to City Council after the pilot projects are evaluated on the
effectiveness of the PDOD.
Pilot Evaluation
The primary purpose of pursuing the pilot would be to evaluate whether the PDOD is functioning
as intended, and staff is proposing to create a task force of stakeholders to meet and evaluate all
PDOD pilot projects. "ilea specific time period of six months is proposed for up to five DDP
applications, the evaluation period will not have a specific end date primarily because it is unknown
how long it will take projects to complete the review process. However, staff will commit to
providing a preliminary report to City Council by first quarter 2014. The task force will work with
325
February 12, 2013
staffto collect as much information as necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about the viability
of the PDOD. If necessary, the task force will make recommendations for ways to improve PDOD
and would report to City Council.
Evaluation of the PDOD pilot would be inclusive of those applicants who choose the PDOD and
those who do not. It will be valuable to understand what reasons, if any; eligible PDOD projects
choose the standard review process. For those projects that do choose the PDOD, evaluation would
include quantitative and qualitative data from the perspective of staff, P&Z, the applicant, and
residents/affected property owners. A list of potential evaluation questions is provided in
Attachment 2. These questions will be./arther refined with the task.force.
In summary, key features of the proposed PDOD pilot include:
• Only projects within the boundary can apply.
• Up to five Detailed Development Plan (Project Development Plan equivalent) submittals
will be accepted during the six-month pilot period.
• The term of vested rights upon approval of a Detailed Development Plan (Final Plan
equivalent) would be 3 years, which is the same term as any standard development.
• While some flexibility is afforded for certain Sections of Article 3 (General Development
Standards), three specific Sections must be complied with in their entirety:
0 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features
0 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
0 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements
• PDOD projects do not have to comply with Article 4 (Districts).
• In addition to compliance with Article 3 standards, PDOD projects must achieve a total of
45 points within 4 out of 7 categories on the performance matrix.
• The modification ofstandards process will not apply to PDOD projects.
• City Council could extend the pilot if an insufficient number of projects submit during the
six-month application period.
Pilot Boundary
Prior to the proposed pilot, the PDOD was originally intended to apply to any project within a
specified boundary area (the original boundary was drawn to be consistent with the City's targeted
infill and redevelopment areas and the Transit Oriented Development Overlay); additionally, it
allowed for properties outside the boundary to "opt -in "provided certain site criteria was met.
During public outreach meetings, concerns were raised by sane over certain areas that were
included in the originally proposed 'PDOD boundary. Specific concerns include the potential
negative impacts on historic resources, established residential neighborhoods, and the Poudre
River. Although PDOD projects are required to meet the majority of existing standards, it is
unknown how the flexibility provided in terms ofland use and dimensional regulations, e.g., height,
setbacks, would affect the project itself and surrounding properties. The primary intent of the pilot
is to allow for real projects to use the PDOD to examine whether these concerns are justif ed. 'Thus,
326
February 12, 2013
certain areas specifically raised as concerns are proposed to be removed from the pilot, and the
"opt -in "feature would not be offered.
The following areas would be excluded from the Pilot:
• The Laurel School Historic District
• The Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District
• 1, 000 feet on both sides of the Poudre River, and
• Properties owned by the State ofColorado and Colorado State Research Foundation located
south of Prospect Road and west of South College Avenue.
While this limited boundary is proposed for the pilot, the evaluation will explore whether this tool
should be expanded to other areas of Fort Collins. See Attachment 3 for a map of the proposed
PDOD pilot boundary.
Ordinance Amending Article 3 "General Standards"
Ordinance No. 025, 2013, amends several Sections ofArticle 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These
amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments and thus
require a separate Ordinance. The PDOD provides some flexibility from existing Article 3
standards by requiring that only the "General Standards" of certain Sections apply. Upon close
examination ofArticle 3, sta. ffound that not all Sections have a "General Standard". Therefore,
to provide consistency and also to create the proper development standards for potential PDOD
projects, the amendments in this Ordinance create "General Standards " where they were missing,
and make some revisions to existing "General Standards "for clarification purposes.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The purpose ofthe PDOD is to reduce barriers for infill and redevelopment projects, which directly
implements Economic Health Policy 4.2 from City Plan. Additionally, the performance matrix
provides the opportunity for the economic benefits of a project to be considered; this is unique and
not something that existing development review can take into consideration.
Concern was raised during public outreach that complying with the PDOD (specifically, the
performance matrix) may add cost to a development project. While it is true that the performance
matrix rewards projects forgoing beyond minimum LUC standards, it is very difficult to provide an
accurate analysis of costs for a PDOD project because of the trade-offs and variety of options an
applicant has to comply with the performance matrix. Financial impact is something the pilot will
evaluate to determine whether the concerns raised are justified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementing the PDOD pilot would facilitate infill development and redevelopment projects
throughout the boundary area, which may or may not have environmental issues to address. Article
327
February 12, 2013
3.4.1 of the Laid Use Code, Natural Habitats and Features, must be complied with in its entirety,
which maintains existing environmental protections from development activity. Additionally, the
performance matrix provides the opportunity to reward projects that go beyond code minimums in
terms of environmental protections and green/sustainable building/site design; this is a unique
.feature ofPDOD that the existing development review process does not consider.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On June 21, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council
adopt both Ordinances (Attachment 4). In terms of the boundary for the PDOD pilot, the Board
recommends removing the following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect
and College.
At its June 13, 2012, meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) voted unanimously
to recommend that Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 5). With regard to the boundary,
the LPC recommends removing the following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect
and College
• Properties within a 1, 000 foot buffer of the Poudre River
On June 20, 2012, the Economic Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that
Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 6). With regard to the boundary, the Commission
recommends maintaining the boundary as originally proposed by staff
At its meeting on May 16, 2012, the Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend the
PDOD Pilot. At the time of this meeting, boundary revisions, were not being considered; therefore,
the Transportation Board did not have the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding
changes to the boundary (Attachment 7).
On May 21, 2012, the Air QualiryAdvisory Board voted 5-1 (one member abstained) to recommend
the PDOD Pilot. Like the Transportation Board, boundary revisions were not being considered at
the time of this meeting; therefore, the Board did not have the opportunity to make a
recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment 8).
328
February 12, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Over the past year, input has been solicited on the PDOD from a variety of stakeholder groups.
General sentiments of support and concerns are summarized below. Note that whether an item
reflects support or concern may vary depending on the perspective of the stakeholder.
Support
• Does not restrict land use to the underlying zoning.
• Provides flexibility from prescriptive, metric standards.
• Allows the context of sites to be taken into consideration during design.
• Considers and rewards projects that incorporate public benefits or go beyond code
minimums.
• Removes the need to apply for separate modifications of standards or an addition of a
permitted use.
• Encourages infill development and redevelopment in targeted areas.
• Provides developers the option to meet with P&Z prior to submitting an application.
Concerns
• Reduces predictability in terms of land use.
• Relies on subjective verses metric interpretations of development standards.
• Requires all projects to be processed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review.
• Mandates that projects go beyond minimum standards and include public benefits which
may add cost.
• Diminishes the effectiveness of existing regulations, e.g., historic preservation or river
buffers, by providing a flexible application of other development standards.
• Developers can "game" the point system on the performance matrix.
A public open house was held on May 7, 2012 in order to solicit input on the PDOD and introduce
the pilot concept. A summary of comments received is included in Attachment 9.
Additionally, the following stakeholders were consulted in the development of the PDOD:
• City Council
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Developers/Brokers via the Urban Renewal Authority luncheon
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Landmark Preservation Commission
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Local Planning Consultants
• Climate Wise Business Partners
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
329
February 12, 2013
• Transportation Board
• Save the Poudre, see letter to City leaders (Attachment 10)
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Economic Advisory Commission
• City staff'
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst, stated one of the Ordinances for consideration adopts the
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot, and the other Ordinance makes permanent
changes to Article 3 of the Land Use Code, amending and creating some general standards. Bolin
stated these items are needed because the City.has policies for encouraging infill and redevelopment,
particularly in certain areas of the city. These types.of projects tend to have additional costs
associated with them and the current Land Use Code regulations do not allow much flexibility for
considering different types of situations.
Bolin introduced the proposed performance matrix and stated its purpose is to reward projects that
go beyond the minimum Code standards or provide significant public benefits. PDOD projects
would need to comply with both Article 3 of the Land Use Code and performance matrix in order
to be considered for approval. All PDOD projects would go before the Planning and Zoning Board
for consideration. Bolin noted the PDOD process would be optional and is not a fast track for
approval. The pilot would be a 6-month period, beginning in March 2013, during which up to five
PDOD projects could be submitted. Council will receive a report regarding the pilot during the first
quarter of 2014.
Bolin reviewed the PDOD boundary, which has been updated per public outreach comments.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, supported the PDOD pilot proposal.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Land Use Code should provide protections for
residents and businesses. He expressed concern that the PDOD process does not provide those
protections.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported the PDOD pilot program.
Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheeley Drive, stated there should have been more neighborhood input
regarding the proposal.
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, supported the PDOD process, but stated there is a disconnect
between zoning and the intention of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he would like his
property to be included in the PDOD.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the PDOD boundary and the confusion over whether or not the
Colorado State University campus is included. Bolin replied the campus is included in the
boundary.
330
February 12, 2013
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development Neighborhood Services Director, stated it would not be
likely that the University would apply to the project because they are not required to follow the
City's processes to develop. The boundary has to include campus because of the City's targeted
infill and redevelopment areas. Should the University use a foundation to do development, it would
be eligible for this process.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the possibility that the boundary is too narrow. Kadrichreplied
the boundary has narrowed over time due to community input and feedback from boards and
commissions. The Planning and Zoning Board originally suggested applying the process to the
community as a whole, but opted to narrow the scope of the pilot, should Council agree.
Councilmember Horak asked about the possibility of Colorado Sstate University Research
Foundation (CSURF) properties using this process. City Attorney Roy replied the City has an
agreement with CSURF regarding its situation with the City's regulatory powers. Kadrich replied
a project team is working on this issue and noted there are different processes that can be followed
depending on who owns the land.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern that the PDOD process could somehow be involved in
the proposed new stadium issue.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if staff would be encouraging the use of this process during the pilot period.
Kadrich replied the six-month period is just for applications, the process itself may go on much
longer.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the exclusion of Mr. Willis' property. Bolin replied his property had
never been included. Kadrich replied it may make sense to include it at some point.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 024, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion; however, he commended recent
changes made by staff. He stated economic benefits do not belong in land use planning and
expressed concern the point system sets too low a goal.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the economic aspect is related to economic health, not economic benefit.
Councilmember Marvel asked how the point total of 45 points was devised. Bolin replied seven
completed projects were analyzed and 45 points appeared to be a reasonable number without being
overly burdensome. That aspect will be evaluated as part of the pilot system.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern the point total is too low and requested additional
information regarding the seven analyzed projects prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern regarding the University stadium issue. Kadrich noted
the neighborhood outreach process for the PDOD is the same as the existing process.
331
February 12, 2013
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays:Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2013, on First Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays:Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
OF.FORT
City Clerk 44t
Ooz _ ...
332