HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingITEM 1, CITY ATTORNEY CLARIFICATION MEMO
1
From: Steve Ramer [mailto:stevemramer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Details regarding Locker installation
Clay,
Again so sorry I could not make it to today for the meeting. Here is in construction/installation plan from my carpenter in
case this information is helpful for the Board.
Answers to questions in response to May 14 email from Clay Frickey:
Will the lockers be anchored or held in place in any way? The Board is concerned about the lockers potentially tipping over
and falling on someone and hurting them.
Our set of lockers will be lined up along the North side of our building, except where our exterior door and an office window
are located.
Please note that neither platform, lockers, or awning will be attached to the building. They will be next to the building, but
not attached. All 3 will be held in place by the end 4x4 posts.
Lockers will sit on wooden platforms and have a rudimentary overhang on top. The main criteria that the City has told us is
that the locker height (including platform height and overhang height) cannot be more that 6’ tall. We will have a set of
lockers on each side of our back door. On the end of each set of lockers we will install a 4x4 placed in concrete (similar to a
fencepost, and 30’’ deep to extend below frostline) and extending up along the side of each end locker. Metal lockers will be
screwed into both the platforms and the (side) 4x4. The overhang sits on top of lockers providing protection from the
elements and will tie into the end 4x4 also.
This method of installation shall keep all lockers stable and prevent the lockers from tipping over.
Lockers: Lockers are painted metal commercial lockers with one interior shelf. We will be installing 2 sets of lockers (all
lockers will be in a single line), one to the left of our North exterior door and one to the right of our door. All lockers will be
either riveted together or machine screwed together with lockwashers. At least 6 rivets or machine screws will attach each
locker to the next locker in the sequence. Nuts and lockwashers will not be exposed on the exterior of the lockers to prevent
vandalism. Lockers will be screwed into above 2x4 and side 4x4 with #14 x 1” Round Head Phillips Zinc-plated wood
screws and using 3/16 flat washers.
Platforms: Platforms will be sitting on the ground/gravel adjacent to the church exterior wall. Platforms are constructed of
2x4 treated lumber, wrapped with ½” CDX plywood. 2x4’s are nailed together with 10 and 12 penny galvanized nails.
Plywood is attached to framing lumber with 1-1/2” coated deck screws. Completed platforms will be primed and then
painted with exterior paint.
Overhang: Overhangs will be constructed of 2x4 treated lumber and ½” CDX plywood. We will be using 15# roofing felt
followed by asphalt shingles (attached with 1-1/4” galvanized roofing nails).
4x4 Treated Posts: There will be a 2x4 attached between each 4x4 (end)post, essentially sitting on top of the set of lockers.
The integrity of the stability of the Locker Units relies on everything being secured to the upright imbedded 4x4 posts.
Steve Ramer
Pastor Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
300 E. Oak St.
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
(970) 412-7510
ITEM 2, LOCKER DETAILS FROM APPLICANT
From: Aleta Rudeen Weller
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Re: Lockers Development Review Hearing
Date: Friday, July 13, 2018 11:32:45 AM
Thank you Clay - appreciate your willingness to share these comments.
The Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship locker proposal at Oak & Mathews, is located a few blocks from my home, where I
live with my husband and two children under 4 years. It is also right next to the only playground near our home in
Library Park, and directly on our walk from our house to downtown - we pretty much have to pass it in order to reach Old
Town without walking on busier streets.
As I'm sure you know, our neighborhood has seen a significant increase in homeless and transient traffic, and have noticed the
effects including litter (my kids regularly pick up mini liquor bottles along our sidewalks), vandalism (our fence and driveway
were tagged last year - I'm not sure by who), people regularly pass our yard using loud, vulgar language while our kids are
playing, and last year our 3-year-old son found human poop with toilet paper underneath the slide of our closest playground at
Library Park.
I support services to help the homeless population. My primary concerns about lockers are related to placing these services in
a residential neighborhood, including:
Geographic location. Neighborhoods lack facilities, proper lighting, benches, trash cans, bathrooms, and police
presence that exists in more public locations. Also, I walk through the neighborhood alone and with young kids
regularly - there are fewer other people out and about in neighborhoods compared to downtown, which makes it
feel less safe to me.
Sanitation and lack of bathroom facilities.
Inappropriate use of library. My guess is this location would increase the use of the public library as a daytime
homeless shelter.
Safety.
Lack of trained professionals onsite.
Lack of supervision. It looks like similar programs in other cities where 24/7 unsupervised access was allowed,
and did not have changing and bathroom facilities, were unsuccessful, incurred large additional costs, and in most
cases had to be shut down.
I have similar concerns about the warming station at Grace Presbyterian Church, where we pass daily, and now avoid during
evening walks and outings those nights. These are important services. For me the primary concern is lack of infrastructure in,
and impacts on, residential neighborhoods.
In recent months, the large number of homeless people standing on and around the Mennonite church property has had a huge
impact on our neighborhood. Even last week, I was pushing our stroller down the sidewalk past the church with our kids - and
people hanging out at the church had overflowed into the sidewalk, were using loud and inappropriate language within a
couple feet for our little kids, an aggressive-looking dog came close to the stroller, and several people wouldn't move from the
sidewalk to let us pass so we had to push the stroller through the grass to get by. It has hugely, negatively impacted a very
nice place to live with a lovely walk to town. Now it feels like you have to pass through a bottleneck of
intoxicated/inappropriate/somewhat aggressive people to get downtown, in a place were I am somewhat isolated (there's often
no other pedestrians around).
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Aleta Weller
970-213-9348
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Aleta,
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, A. WELLER
You can share your comments with me and I will pass them along to the Planning & Zoning Board
for their consideration.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Aleta Rudeen Weller [mailto:aleta.weller@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:00 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers Development Review Hearing
Hi Clay,
I am a resident of the Library Park neighborhood in Old Town. I am unavailable to attend
the review hearing on July 19 regarding the proposed lockers. Is there a way to share my
thoughts via email or mail?
Thanks,
Aleta Weller
331 Smith St.
970-213-9348
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, A. WELLER
1
From: Pamela Refvem [mailto:pamelaanne46@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 4:09 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: July 19th Planning and Zoning Board hearing re: Minor Amendment for external storage
Please pass along to the Board (if not too late): (and, again, thanks for all your hard work on this p
Re: B. section 1.2.2 (M) . City findings: "Most activity in the neighborhood occurs during the day
activity going on during the night". We have "activity" at night in the Library Park Neighborhood
to and from downtown at night for a variety of purposes. The numerous evening downtown event
park on East Oak, Mathews and Peterson, and then walk to and from downtown. How does the co
neighborhood has "little activity" during the night satisfy the purpose statement? How is "activity
The applicant sent an email to City Leaders (dated 2/5/18) stating "if it does not work we shut it do
who use the lockers will most likely monitor the behaviors of each other".
I respectfully request that the Board ask the following questions (if deemed appropriate) during th
hearing:
How does the applicant intend to evaluate "if it works" and what does "works" mean?
Does the applicant expect the users of the lockers to monitor the behaviors of those who do not ha
use the lockers? The applicant states that they will not permit the changing of clothes, sleeping, o
out" by the lockers. Please consider the reports in your packets of individuals on this property cha
defecating, abandoning soiled clothing and other belongings, posing health/safety risks to the neig
camping citations on this property are well documented.
What are the qualifications/training of the "Church staff"? How does "being present" alleviate neg
impacts? Would the "Church staff' (who are they?) be standing outside from 8am-8pm? Inside?
How specifically do these conditions of approval alleviate impacts form behavior that would be po
disruptive to the existing neighborhood? Video surveillance has little to no positive impact on cri
the ACLU). Security cameras failed to protect the neighborhood business located just down the
Mennonite Fellowship property.
This variance diverges from the standards of the Land Use Code. Please deny this request for a va
Thank you for the opportunity to raise these questions. And than your for your willingness to serv
and Zoning Board.
Respectfully,
Pamela Refvem
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, P. REFVEM
From: Patricia Roadcap [mailto:trishrdcp@q.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: External storage lockers, MA180033
My name is Patricia Roadcap and we received notice of the public hearing for this proposed project to
install 20 storage lockers because my husband and I own a condo near this development site. We
cannot attend the hearing, but would like our comments included and considered during the hearing.
We absolutely oppose the building of these storage lockers which will be used by homeless individuals
to store their personal belongings. This will encourage the homeless to congregate and stay in our
neighborhood, as these lockers will make it convenient for them to do so. This is not a solution for
anyone. Please DO NOT approve these storage lockers at the church!
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, P. ROADCAP
From: Jonathan Dawoud [mailto:rockerjon2005@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:09 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: I support the Mennonite Church locker program
My name is Jonathan Dawoud and I am a home owner and registered voter in Larimer county
and I fully SUPPORT the Mennonite Church program with lockers for the homeless and u
should to. The Fort Collins city attorney supports it and feels that not supporting it will lead to
criminalizing homelessness as the city has tried to do in the past I will b participating in the
protest as scheduled thank u
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, J. DAWOUD
From: lm barnes [mailto:lynne2820@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:57 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers for the homeless
To whom it may concern:
I have heard that the City Council is blocking an effort by the Mennonite Church to rent lockers for the
possessions of our city’s homeless. Why would the Council take such a heartless position? I am writing
to respectfully request that the Council change its position on this matter.
Sincerely
Lynne Barnex
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, L. BARNEX
From: Marcy Clark [mailto:marcyclark1943@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:52 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers for the homeless
I am increasingly concerned with a sense of Fort Collins being a city that avoids the issues of those in
need. I am a voting, participating citizen and increasingly moved to be even more active in efforts to
challenge the behaviors of city government.
Fort Collins has the opportunity to be a vibrant, innovative community that works to meet the needs of
all who live here, rather than of a wealthy and influential few. I support the efforts of FCCAN, Fort
Collins Homeless Coalition and other compassionate and forward thinking members of out community
who are attempting to address rather than avoid barriers and issues in our community.
Marcy Clark
3200 Azalea Drive, S-5
Fort Collins, CO 80526
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. CLARK
From: Emeshe Amade
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:13:35 PM
Hello planning and zoning staff,
My name is Emeshe Amade and I am a student at CSU. I’m writing you to express my suppprt
for the locker program at the Mennonite Fellowship. This program is simple, cost effective,
and is managed by people who I have volunteered with and trust. Not only do they have a
relationship with the Fort Collins homeless poplulation but also have a history of success in
their endeavors to give impactful aid. Please give them a shot.
Thank you,
Emeshe Amade
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, E. AMADE
From: aquatics@fastmail.fm
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers fir the homeless
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:22:05 PM
I think it is great that the Mennonite Church wants to minister to the homeless
by providing lockers for them to keep their belongings. It is a waste of resources
to fight this idea. Where is the heart of Ft.Collins? Irene Weinmann resident of
Ft.Collins since 1971.
--
aquatics@fastmail.fm
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, I. WEINMANN
From: Kate Schulte
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Homeless lockers
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:05:53 PM
Hello,
While I can understand that there are concerns about having lockers for the homeless located in
downtown Fort Collins, I can also say that the homeless have so much to gain from this potential
resource, and the risk is manageable. If the lockers pose a problem, then shut them down, but they
can potentially let a homeless person apply for a job safely, without looking homeless, and create
much less burden on them. My husband works within the jail system and sees that the jail is
operating as a mental health center in may cases. It is easier to commit a small crime and get jailed
than live on the streets. Let’s try to make live more manageable for the homeless so they can
become contributing members of our community. Thanks for your consideration!
Kate Schulte
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. SCHULTE
From: RICHARD JIRU
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:07:25 PM
The city must make a compelling case for blocking the lockers - or else allow them.
Richard Jiru/Fort Collins
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. JIRU
From: Sheryl Harrell
To: Clay Frickey
Cc: "Shirley Coenen"
Subject: RE: What is wrong with this picture?
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:22:50 PM
Hello:
First of all, I feel it necessary to provide full disclosure: I am not a member of the Fort Collins
Mennonite Church/Fellowship (FCMF) nor am I affiliated with the Church in any way. I’m a
concerned taxpayer who is wondering about the ongoing discrimination by the Fort Collins
City Manager and staff toward the Church.
Why are City officials discriminating against a faith community (FCMF) in their efforts toward
easing the burdens of our less fortunate community members? All they want to do is provide
storage locker space for homeless individuals. There are currently 13 lockers sitting empty,
which could provide relief and lessen the load for the homeless in For Collins. They have met
City requirements more than once. But because the City of Fort Collins City Manager and staff
have caused puzzling delays, unreasonable demands, and attempts to use the planning &
zoning process to add a set of impossible-to-meet conditions, you are effectively shutting the
locker project down.
What kind of community leaders do we have who are making it all but impossible for a faith
community to do their mission to support the homeless? What kind of community are we
becoming that would allow this to happen? I understand there are at least two sides to this
issue. Maybe there are noise, health and safety concerns that neighbors in proximity to the
FCMF have voiced. However, it is my understanding that the FCMF has been willing to add the
necessary security and lighting that was originally requested. So, why are additional measures
being imposed? Additional, unreasonable measure including limiting the hours of access to
the lockers and requiring that the lockers be housed inside the Church? Why claim that the
original MOU for funding was invalid? These, and other questions need to be answered.
I hope that this issue can be resolved in a way that supports the Church’s efforts in doing their
mission. That would restore my faith in the humanity of the Fort Collins City Manager and staff
and demonstrate that you care about the homeless in our community.
Sincerely,
S Harrell
Fort Collins CO
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, S. HARRELL
1
Gretchen Schiager
From: Clay Frickey
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Gretchen Schiager
Subject: FW: lockers for the homeless
Letter for the lockers.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Sheryl Martin [mailto:martinsheryl13@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 3:18 PM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: lockers for the homeless
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express consternation at the unfair treatment the Mennonite Church is
receiving for wanting to provide lockers for the homeless. It is clear from the past several
years that the city is attempting to pass rules or laws that make it difficult for the homeless
to reside here in Fort Collins. The reality is, every community, especially the believing
community have a responsibility towards the homeless including an intense drive towards
affordable housing.
--
Sheryl Martin
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, S. MARTIN
LOCKER AGREEMENT
Guest Name: ---------------
Starting Date: __J __j __
Ending Date: __J __J _
LOCKER RULES:
A: No guns, knives, flammable/explosive items or other weapons of any kind can
be stored in the lockers.
B: No food, alcohol, illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia can be stored in the lockers.
C: Lockers may be kept for 3 months, with a notice during that time as a reminder
of your expiration date. Failure to empty your locker by the expiration date will
result in Murphy Center removing your items. After your locker items are removed,
we will do our best to save important documents (IE; driver's licenses, SS cards,
birth certificates, etc.) for 6 months. Murphy Center will save clothing & other items
for 1 month, after that the items will be recycled.
D: Murphy Center is not responsible for lost or damaged Items.
E: Lockers can be accessed Mon - Fri, 8:50AM to 5PM
F: Lockers need to close completely for the safety of others in the locker room.
G: Boxes/bags filled with additional items cannot be stored on the lockers or on the
floor. This space is reserved for staff purged locker items.
H: Not following Murphy Center rules may result in being banned.
I: Staff may search lockers without notice if there is suspicion of a rule violation.
J: If your locker is abandoned/left empty, it will be reassigned.
Signature-By signing, I AGREE to the rules listed above.
____________ Date:__}__} __
Staff Assigning Locker:
Date:__} __J __
Staff Emptying Locker:
Date:__} __j __
-------------
-------------
REGLAS DE ALMACENAJE:
A: Pistolas, cuchillos, articulos inflamables/explosivos y otras armas nose pueden
guardar en las taquillas.
B: Comida, alcohol, drogas ilegales o accesorios para drogas nose pueden guardar
en las taquillas.
C: Las taquillas se pueden utilizar por 3 meses. Despues de 2 meses, los vamos a
avisar que necesitan vaciarlas. Despues de haber removido sus artfculos de la
taquilla, el Murphy Center tratara de guardar los documentos mas importantes
(coma la licencia de Tl)anejar, las cartas de seguro social, los certificados de
nacimientos) por 6 meses. Tambien vamos a guardar su ropa y otras cosas por 1
mes. Despues de este periodo, vamos a donar todo.
D: El Murphy Center no es responsable por artfculos perdidos o dafiados.
E: Las taquillas se pueden acceder del lunes al viernes de las 8:50 AM a las 5 PM
F: Es importante cerrar completamente las taquillas para la seguridad de los otros
en el vestuario.
G: En el vestuario nose pueden guardar cajas o balsas en el piso. Solamente los
empleados del Murphy Center pueden utilizar este espacio.
H: Porno seguir las reglas del Murphy Center se puede perder el derecho de utilizar
las taquillas.
I: El personal del Murphy Center puede inspeccionar las taquillas sin previo aviso si
existe sospecha de una infracci6n a las normas.
J: Si tu armario es abandonado/vacfo, se va a asignar a otro/a.
ITEM 2, MURPHY CENTER LOCKER OPERATION
Locker Extension Request
Name (Print): ________________________ _
Contact Information: -Phone ------- Email: --~-------
Date: ____________________________ _
We do require . a specific . . . plan with a specific . date·for . removal .. . . . to . . consider . a-locker··
exten.sion.
Please expiain what your plan is, and why you are in need of mor~_time:
I, __________ _, will remove belongings by ________ _
Signature . -Date
Your request will be reviewed in the weekly case consultation meeting which
occurs every Thursday at .2pm. We will contact you the following day to inform
you ofyou status. Please make sure to check-in with the front desk daily if you
have no way to be contacted.
Thank you, The Murphy Center for Hope
ITEM 2, MURPHY CENTER LOCKER OPERATION
Locker Notice
Dear
You have been given this notice because you have had this locker
for 2 months or longer. Due to the increasing number of individuals
requesting lockers, The Murphy Center has issued a policy that
individuals are permitted to have a locker for a 3 month time period.
You have one month to clean out your locker. If your belongings a.re not
cleared out by , your locker will be cleared out by MC staff.
Please start making other arrangements. Please contact the front desk if
you have any concerns or questions.
Thank you!
ITEM 2, MURPHY CENTER LOCKER OPERATION
1669544.5
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Case No. MA180033
Applicant: Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
Re: Minor Amendment Application (Case No. MA180033)
Date: July 18, 2018
HEARING BRIEF OF
FORT COLLINS MENNONITE FELLOWSHIP
The Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship (the “Mennonite Fellowship” or “Church”) submits this
Hearing Brief in support of its Minor Amendment application. The Church respectfully requests that the
Planning and Zoning Board (“PZB”) of the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) unconditionally approve its
application for a Minor Amendment (the “Locker Application”) for the installation of a bank of twenty
lockers (the “Locker Project”) on the rear exterior wall of the Church’s existing structure at 300 East Oak
Street in the City.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since 2017, the Mennonite Fellowship, a Christian religious organization founded upon principles
of service to the neediest in the community, has pursued the Locker Project in order to serve a limited
number of people in Fort Collins experiencing homelessness. Without a safe and secure place to store their
belongings, homeless persons in the City are effectively limited to keeping only those belongings that they
can carry. With the Locker Project, the Church intends to provide a safe place for these community
members to store their belongings, in order to—both literally and figuratively—relieve a burden off of their
backs.
City staff has required the Church to proceed through the Minor Amendment process generally
described in Section 2.2.10 of the City’s Land Use Code (the “Code”) in order to complete the Locker
Project, and has further determined that the Locker Application should require review in a public hearing
by the PZB. The PZB is scheduled to hear the Locker Application on July 19, 2018. Despite insisting that
the lockers require City approval, the City has yet to identify language in the Code mandating, or even
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
2
1669544.5
authorizing, the current approval process. That lack of Code support is troubling because the City does not
appear to require a similar process for many other outdoor storage uses on private property, such as sheds,
Little Free Libraries, or bike racks. Rather, the City’s unusual interest in the Locker Project is clearly
founded in its concerns about the Church’s ministry to people experiencing homelessness. To date, the
City has offered vague, contradictory, and textually unsupported explanations for its decision to require a
public land use approval for the Locker Application and has gone so far as to state that this is a “borderline”
case to which the Code may not apply at all. Although City staff has recommended approving the lockers,
its recommendation adds a set of conditions,1 ostensibly driven by public safety concerns, that have not
been applied to other outdoor storage facilities on private property and that, given the Church’s limited
resources, will be impossible to satisfy. And those conditions, too, have legally insufficient support from
the Code.
Should the PZB, animated by concerns about the Church’s ministry, deny the Locker Application
or approve it with City staff’s recommended conditions, it will exceed its jurisdiction. And in so doing, it
will violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc et seq.
(“RLUIPA”) as well as the U.S. Constitution. The present hearing offers an opportunity to avoid those
legal concerns and to render a decision that comports with Colorado and federal law. For the reasons
outlined below, the Church respectfully requests that the PZB conclude that the Locker Application does
not require City approval, or, in the alternative, unconditionally approve the Locker Application.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Church’s Locker Project is Central to its Ministry to the Poor
The Mennonite Fellowship is a Mennonite church near downtown Fort Collins. Per its website,
the Church is “called by Christ to be inclusive, compassionate, justice seeking and peace making.” The
Church practices the “radical inclusivity” of Jesus, which “means working with, having compassion for,
1 The four proposed conditions are: (1) install a security camera to monitor activities around the lockers and retain
security footage for 7 days; (2) Church staff must be present during hours of operation; (3) limit locker operation
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and (4) restrict access to the lockers outside of normal hours of operation of the lockers.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
3
1669544.5
and getting to know people who, as Jesus said, are the ‘least of us’ and are often on the margins of society.”
Consistent with those foundational religious beliefs, the Mennonite Fellowship has a long history of
ministering to people experiencing homelessness in Fort Collins. Its ministry includes twice-weekly
dinners, temporary living quarters, and educational programming, all of which occur at the Church. The
Church also serves as a warming shelter during the winter. It does not condition access to its programs and
ministry upon membership. Indeed, to do so would violate the Church’s religious precept of radical
inclusivity.
The Locker Project’s genesis dates to March 21, 2017, when the Fort Collins City Council passed
an “Appropriate Use of Public Facilities” ordinance (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) restricting conduct
typically associated with people experiencing homelessness. That ordinance makes it an offense to sit,
kneel, or lie on unapproved objects near transit facilities and public restrooms. The ordinance also makes
it unlawful to leave personal belongings unattended in public spaces.
The ordinance’s limitation on the storage of personal property effectively prohibits people
experiencing homelessness from owning anything more than they can carry. Evidently recognizing as
much, the City sought to pilot a public locker project, which would have allowed members of the
community to store personal belongings in publicly accessible lockers located on a service agency’s
property. That effort culminated in a service agreement between the City and the Church, signed on
September 29, 2017 (and attached hereto as Exhibit 2), and would have allowed the Church to further its
ministry to the City’s homeless population. Under that agreement the Mennonite Fellowship was to supply
the lockers on the rear wall of the Church, as well as related support services. The City was to provide
funding for the project. However, the City Council voted against funding the lockers on February 6, 2018.
City staff subsequently informed the Mennonite Fellowship that lockers would be permitted on the
Church’s property, and that the Church could proceed with the now-private Locker Project if it funded the
locker installation on its own. The Mennonite Fellowship thus conducted its own fundraising, and
purchased twenty used lockers for placement on its property. By the spring of 2018, the Church was
equipped with the funds, the lockers, and a calling to expand its comprehensive ministry to people
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
4
1669544.5
experiencing homelessness. No mention was ever made of necessary zoning approvals for the lockers at
the City Council’s meeting in February 2018 or in the Church’s contract with the City, although the City’s
Social Sustainability Department Director indicated in a May 2017 email (attached hereto as Exhibit 3)
that a Minor Amendment would be necessary to confirm the location of the lockers with respect to
dumpsters or trash cans on the property.
B. The Minor Amendment Process
The Minor Amendment process is governed by Section 2.2.10 of the Code. Section 2.2.10 is titled
“Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use.” A Minor Amendment is therefore the tenth step in a process
that otherwise includes approvals of development plans for new uses or structures. While the Code is
unspecific with respect to what actions would trigger the Minor Amendment process, and does not define
the term “minor amendment,” Section 2.2.10(A) of the Code appears to require the Minor Amendment
process in two scenarios: “[m]inor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall
Development Plan or Project Development Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing
condition of a platted property” or “[c]hanges of use.” Where the development plan or site specific
development plan in question was previously approved administratively—as is the case here—the Minor
Amendment request must meet seven approval criteria set forth in Section 2.2.10(A)(1) in order to be
approved. The approval criteria pertain exclusively to the size, bulk, use, and character of the subject of
the Minor Amendment application, and none of the criteria pertain to considerations of public safety.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.10(A), a Minor Amendment may be approved, conditionally approved, or
denied by the Director of the City’s Planning, Development and Transportation Department (“PDT”).
Section 2.2.10(A)(4) gives the Director authority to refer an application for a Minor Amendment to the
PZB. In such cases, “[t]he 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.”
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
5
1669544.5
A preliminary search of City records indicates that the City has not historically required Minor
Amendment approval for a representative sample of other small, publicly accessible storage installations. 2
The attached Exhibit 4 provides a summary of our public records searches relating to a sampling of storage
sheds, Little Free Libraries, bike racks, video vending machines and ATMs. That preliminary review of
City records produced no information regarding Minor Amendments processed or granted for the example
uses—all of which provide some form of storage in areas accessible to members of the public. Similarly,
a preliminary search of outdoor storage shed approvals indicated that the City has required Minor
Amendment approval on only four occasions during the available records period (which dates to at least
the 1970s), despite processing dozens of building permits for sheds during the same timeframe. It is our
understanding, however, that the City occasionally processes Minor Amendment applications for ATMs.
Furthermore, it is our understanding that, when that process does apply, the City processes the vast
majority of Minor Amendment applications administratively, as contemplated by section 2.2.10(A) of the
Code. City Attorney Carrie Daggett indicated in a letter dated July 9, 2018 (the “July 9 Letter” attached
hereto as Exhibit 5), that “in staff’s recollection of recent projects,” the City’s PDT Director has referred,
on a discretionary basis, “at least three” such applications to a hearing officer or the PZB. A cursory review
of the City’s “Development Proposals Under Review” website would suggest that the City is currently
processing over 100 applications for Minor Amendments, thus confirming the rarity of referrals of Minor
Amendment applications to the PZB.
C. The City Subjected the Church’s Locker Installation to an Unusual and Difficult
Approval Process
On April 18, 2018, after the Church had taken delivery of some of the lockers, it received a letter
from a PDT staff member purporting to require approval via the Minor Amendment process. Although the
City had never before requested a Minor Amendment for other accessory uses or structures on Church’s
2 A City staff member indicated to undersigned counsel that the City’s online records are comprehensive, but not
necessarily complete. Moreover, it is possible that such structures and improvements were approved via other means
not available from a search of the City’s Minor Amendment records and also that a search for particular terms did not
return all records relevant to those terms.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
6
1669544.5
property, including the Church’s existing ministry to the homeless or its storage sheds, the Mennonite
Fellowship completed the required Minor Amendment application. When the Church’s pastor, Steve
Ramer, asked why the City was requiring an approval for the Locker Project, a City official responded that
the lockers served members of the public, and did not directly benefit the Church’s members.
The PDT Director then referred the Locker Application to the PZB for a hearing that was initially
scheduled on May 31, 2018. In connection with the hearing, City staff prepared a report (attached hereto
as Exhibit 6) analyzing the Locker Application and recommending its approval with conditions. Those
conditions were as follows:
1. Nighttime illumination of the lockers in compliance with Land
Use Code Section 3.2.4.
2. Installation of a security camera to monitor activity around the
lockers 24/7.
3. A 24/7 contact person to respond to issues that may occur related
to the storage lockers.
Pastor Ramer previously offered the addition of the security cameras and lighting, but City staff added the
additional lighting condition, citing one of the general purposes of the City’s Land Use Code, contained in
Section 1.2.2(C),3 as the basis for the additional conditions.
On May 30, 2018, the day before the PZB hearing on the Locker Application, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Mihelich (who, pursuant to the Code, has no authority to review Minor Amendment applications)
informed Pastor Ramer via email that the hearing had been postponed due to “some reservations regarding
the safety of the proposed use.” Staff then rescinded its original report and issued a revised report (attached
hereto as Exhibit 7), again recommending approval of the Locker Project but appending the following
conditions:
1. Install a security camera to monitor activities around the lockers
and retain security footage for 7 days.
2. Church staff must be present during hours of operation;
3 Section 1.2.2(C) provides the one of the purposes of the Code is “fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of
the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.”
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
7
1669544.5
3. Limit locker operation between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and
4. Restrict access to the lockers outside of normal hours of operation
of the lockers.
The City’s revised report did not explain the deficiencies with the original report’s recommendations but
did include a survey of a limited range of other cities’ locker initiatives for people experiencing
homelessness. In crafting these revised conditions, City staff once again relied on the Code’s general
purpose of promoting safety. The conditions are not justified with reference to the approval criteria for a
Minor Amendment as contained in Section 2.2.10(A)(1) of the Code.
D. The City’s Inconsistent and Unsupported Use of the Minor Amendment Process
To date, the City has neither provided a Code citation triggering any requirement for Minor
Amendment approval for the Locker Project, nor has the City offered any justification for the referral of
the Locker Application to PZB. City officials themselves have offered shifting interpretations as to the
Minor Amendment process’s applicability in connection with the current application process. At the PZB
work session on Friday, July 13, 2018, the same City staff member who on April 18, 2018 indicated that
the City would require Minor Amendment approval for the Locker Project, stated that “this is one of those
projects that’s in a gray area in terms of the land use code, its applicability. It’s, from a land use perspective,
it’s borderline how much it really applies . . . .” Similarly, when undersigned counsel asked another City
staff member whether installing a Little Free Library—another storage structure allowing 24/7,
unsupervised public access—would require any form of City land use approval or permit, the planner
indicated that it would not. Furthermore, in the July 9 Letter, the City Attorney stated that the City would
not require Minor Amendment approval if the lockers were placed indoors, but that such approval was
required because they were to be sited outdoors. The letter did not indicate where the Code made such a
distinction.
The City Attorney has also seemed to recognize that deploying the Minor Amendment process in
this instance has been a departure from the typical process. In a May 31, 2018 email (attached hereto as
Exhibit 8), the City Attorney stated, “the approach being taken is not quite the same as [the City’s] usual
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
8
1669544.5
process” and cautioned that “the special discussions amongst staff could be used as a basis for arguing that
we are treating the Church less favorably than other applicants based on the Church’s religious practices
(ministering to the homeless).” Soon after sending that email, which Pastor Ramer received in error, the
City Attorney attempted, unsuccessfully, to recall it.
On June 29, 2018, undersigned counsel transmitted to the City a letter (attached hereto as Exhibit
9) detailing the procedural oddities and legal frailties threatening the Locker Application process and
formally demanded that the City either cease the application process altogether or approve the Locker
Application. In the July 9 Letter, the City Attorney declined to do so, and thus, the Locker Application is
now before the PZB for your consideration.
III. ARGUMENT
A. The Code Does Not Authorize the City to Process the Locker Application
The City cannot require Minor Amendment approval without specific authorization from the Code.
See Sherman v. City of Colo. Springs Plan. Comm’n, 680 P.2d 1302, 1304 (Colo. App. 1983) (holding that
a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction when it exercises discretion it does not have). Here,
Section 2.2.10(A) supplies the only triggers for processing of a Minor Amendment. Construing that section,
various City representatives have recognized that it does not clarify what projects must receive Minor
Amendment approval. It is the Church’s position that the Locker Project requires no City approval
whatsoever.
The City has not offered any Code-based reason for requiring Minor Amendment approval in this
context. It has not suggested that the Locker Project constitutes an amendment to “any approved
development plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan, [or] any site
specific development plan.” Nor has the City argued that the Locker Installation is a “change of use.”4
Rather, the City has stated only that (1) the Locker Project requires Minor Amendment approval because it
4 Section 5.1.2 of the Code defines a change of use as “the act of changing the occupancy of a building or land to a
different use that is specifically listed as a ‘Permitted Use’ in Article 4.” The Church has not proposed such a change.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
9
1669544.5
will serve members of the public and not simply members of the Church, and/or (2) the Locker Project is
an accessory use requiring such approval.
Neither of the City’s rationales finds support in the Code, and the City’s statements and conduct
dictate that a Minor Amendment is not required here. First, the Code does not distinguish between services
available to a Church’s members and those available to the general public, and although the Church makes
many services available to the general public (e.g., meals for people experiencing homelessness) the City
has not required Minor Amendment approval for those services. Thus, the distinction makes no difference
under the Code. However, denying the Locker Application, or imposing the proposed conditions on the
Church would impair the Church’s ability to put into practice its fundamental religious belief in radical
inclusivity. Second, the City Attorney, in the July 9 Letter, effectively conceded that the Locker Project
was not an accessory use, stating, “[T]he Church can install and operate the lockers inside the Church
without any approval from the Planning and Zoning Board or even administrative review by staff”
(emphasis added). If the Locker Project were in fact an accessory use, however, it would require some
form of approval irrespective of its location. See Code Section 4.9(B)1(d). The City Attorney’s analysis
therefore indicates that the Locker Project is not an accessory use, but rather an extension of the present
primary use. Third, City staff has admitted that the Locker Project exists in a “gray area” and that it is
“borderline how much [the Code] really applies.” And fourth, confirming that point, our preliminary review
of City records disclosed that the City has not required Minor Amendment approval for a variety of storage
uses on private parcels, such as sheds, bike racks, donation bins and even video vending machines. There
exists no Code-based reason for adopting a different approach here.
In sum, the Code does not provide support for requiring Minor Amendment approval in this context.
The City has not provided any valid argument to the contrary, and the City’s own statements and practices
in fact support the conclusion that Minor Amendment approval is not required. Thus, the City’s processing
of, and PZB’s hearing of, the Locker Application exceeds the City’s jurisdiction as conferred by the Code.
B. Even Assuming the City Can Process the Application, the Locker Project Satisfies the
Only Listed Criteria and Colorado Law Prohibits the City from Adding Staff’s
Recommended Conditions
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
10
1669544.5
1. The Locker Project Satisfies the Minor Amendment Criteria.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Church must receive Minor Amendment approval, its
application satisfies the Minor Amendment criteria. Under the Code, the PZB may approve the Locker
Project if it satisfies seven criteria from Section 2.2.10(A)(1). Although many of those criteria do not apply
(further suggesting the Minor Amendment process is being misused here), the Church addresses each
criterion in turn below.
(a) Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units,
except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to
a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling
units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less. Criterion (a) does not apply
because the Locker Application does not propose adding or removing residential
units.
(b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land
use or structure that does not change the character of the project. The Locker Project
will occupy just sixty-two square feet of a 15,200 square foot property, and will not
change the character of the Church’s property. The Church’s ministry already
encompasses a range of programs addressing the needs of people experiencing
homelessness, and many of those programs involve non-member traffic to the Church
throughout the day and into the evening. The Locker Project is part of that existing
ministry—the primary use on the property.
(c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements
of the zone district and does not change the character of the project. The Locker
Application satisfies criterion (c). As City staff noted in the July 19 report, the Locker
Project does not change any existing use—which use comprises Church worship
services and its ministry to people experiencing homelessness.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
11
1669544.5
(d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development. For the reasons expressed
in City staff’s July 19 report, the Church agrees that the Locker Application satisfies
criterion (d). The Locker Project, which will provide personal property storage for
just twenty people experiencing homelessness, does not create any departure from the
Church’s current ministry to the same population, which already visits the Church
to receive services.
(e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking
lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the
approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan. The
Locker Application satisfies criterion (e) because the lockers will sit flush against the
north wall of the Church and will therefore fit within the existing lot.
(f) Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the
character of the project, and that the plan as amended continues to comply with the
requirements of this Code. Criterion (f) does not apply because the Locker Application
does not raise the possibility of a change in the number of dwelling units.
(g) In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being brought into
compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent may be modified pursuant to
below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the applicable general development standards
contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this
Code. Criterion (g) does not apply because, as City staff recognized in the July 19
report, the Locker Application does not propose a change of use.
2. Staff’s Proposed Conditions Lack Support in the Code.
While the Mennonite Fellowship agrees with City staff that the PZB must approve the Locker
Application because it satisfies the applicable criteria, the Church disagrees with City staff’s
recommendation to add several conditions that the City claims are aimed at promoting safety. The PZB
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
12
1669544.5
should decline to impose those conditions because (1) it lacks authority to do so; and (2) City staff has
offered no credible reason to believe the lockers will create safety concerns requiring the added conditions.
As a home-rule municipality, the City enjoys broad state-delegated authority to legislate, but that
authority does not allow the PZB to add conditions to a land use approval absent specific Code standards
guiding those conditions. A local government exercising its delegated authority must follow “sufficient
standards and procedural safeguards” to ensure that its actions are rational, consistent, and reviewable by a
court. Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 709 P.2d 928, 936 (Colo. 1985). Those safeguards must
be “sufficiently detailed to provide all users and potential users of land with notice of the particular
standards and requirements.” Id. When a local government adds conditions to a land use approval, then, it
must do so pursuant to sufficiently specific criteria, and not on an “ad hoc” basis “without controlling
standards.” Id.
Here, the PZB has no authority to add City staff’s recommended safety criteria because they amount
to no more than “ad hoc” conditions made without controlling standards. Not one of the Minor Amendment
approval criteria mentions or conceivably relates to safety, and nothing in Section 2.2.10 governing Minor
Amendments sets criteria for the conditions the PZB may add. City staff’s only source of authority for the
conditions is therefore the Code’s general purpose provision from Section 1.2.2(C), stating that the Code
should “foster[] the safe, efficient and economic use of the land.”5 That statement—which provides the
general basis for the City’s entire zoning code—offers no guidance as to what the PZB may add and
provides no notice to a potential applicant as to what the City might require. Notably, the Minor
Amendment criteria in Section 2.2.10(A)(1) make no reference whatsoever to the general purposes of the
Code. The concept of “safety,” without more, is simply too broad. Indeed, the Church is unaware of any
5 To be sure, Section 2.2.9—which does not clearly apply to Minor Amendment applications—indicates that the City
“may impose such conditions on approval of the development application as are necessary to accomplish the purposes
and intent of this Code, or such conditions that have a reasonable nexus to potential impacts of the proposed
development, and that are roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of the proposed
development.” Not only does this language fail to provide any safety-specific standards, however, its disjunctive “or”
indicates that the decision maker need not consider impacts at all and may simply impose conditions to advance the
purposes of the Code. Thus, this section provides no additional safeguards or notice to potential applicants.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
13
1669544.5
other safety conditions the City has added to outdoor storage facilities. Should the PZB attempt to add the
recommended criteria, it will exceed its jurisdiction under Beaver Meadows.
If it adds the conditions, the PZB will also exceed its jurisdiction because no competent evidence
supports those conditions, and the City has failed to substantiate any safety concerns the conditions
purportedly address. Indeed, one of the Church’s goals in pursuing the Locker Project is to provide persons
experiencing homelessness with some degree of protection for themselves and their belongings. Indeed,
by providing that protection, the Locker Project advances public safety. By imposing the proposed
conditions and thereby thwarting the Church’s ability to carry out the Locker Project, the City leaves
unaddressed the public safety problem posed by forcing persons experiencing homelessness to carry all of
their belongings with them, which increases their daily risk of being targets and victims of crime.
C. The City Will Violate Federal Law and the Constitution if it Denies the Locker
Application or Imposes Staff’s Recommended Conditions
Although the foregoing factual background and legal deficiencies offer sufficient reason for the
PZB to conclude that the Minor Amendment process does not apply to the Locker Project or to approve the
Locker Application without conditions, it also raises serious concerns under federal and constitutional law.
The City has required the Church to follow a highly unusual and unauthorized approval process, and its
actions to date have called into question whether the lockers will be allowed at all. Both federal law and
the Constitution prohibit governments from subjecting religious exercise to less-than-equal treatment and
similarly prevent governments from imposing substantial burdens or unreasonable restrictions on religious
institutions. Here, should the PZB deny the Locker Application or approve it with City staff’s onerous and
unsupported conditions, its actions will compound the City’s violations of RLUIPA as well as various
federal constitutional provisions.
1. RLUIPA Prohibits the PZB from Denying the Locker Application or
Approving it with the Prohibited Conditions
With RLUIPA, Congress aimed to prevent governments from miring churches in reviews and
restrictions unique to religious exercise, or distinguishing between religious sects based on their religious
views. RLUIPA therefore prohibits three forms of discrimination against religious exercise: (1) actions
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
14
1669544.5
that treat religious institutions on less-than-equal terms; (2) actions that place a substantial burden on
religious exercise without sufficient justification; and (3) actions that unreasonably limit religious
assemblies, institutions or structures in a particular jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The process to date
and City staff’s recommended conditions threaten violations under all three components of the statute.
First, under RLUIPA’s “Equal Terms” provision, a government cannot “impose or implement a
land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with
a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). Unequal treatment includes processing
an application by a religious organization on a path less favorable than others’ applications. Rocky
Mountain Christian Church v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 613 F.3d 1229, 1236 (10th Cir. 2010)
The City admits that it has placed the Locker Application on a special and more difficult track
relative to that reserved for secular uses, or for similarly-situated religious entities that have extended their
religious practice outside of their buildings. But equal means equal. The Mennonite Fellowship has now
endured a months-long, politicized process that in secular cases takes only several weeks to resolve—and
just before this hearing, the City described the Locker Project as a borderline case to which the Code may
not apply at all. Our preliminary research indicates that the City does not subject other storage uses that
are clearly incidental to or an extension of a property’s primary use to the Minor Amendment process.
Indeed, the City did not require a Minor Amendment for the Church’s unremarkable storage sheds, nor to
the best of our knowledge has it processed such applications for myriad similar outdoor storage uses.
Moreover, the City’s decision to refer the application to PZB is evidence of additional special,
discriminatory treatment. Should the PZB deny the Locker Application or use this already-suspect process
to impose conditions on the Locker Project—conditions that Colorado precedent prohibits—it will
compound these violations of RLUIPA’s equal terms prong.
Second, RLUIPA prohibits land use regulations that substantially burden an institution’s religious
exercise unless the government can show that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and
is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). Courts have routinely
held that social services provided by religious assemblies or institutions, such as soup kitchens and services
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
15
1669544.5
for homeless populations, qualify as religious exercise. See, e.g., Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City
of San Buenaventura, 642 Fed.Appx. 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished); Layman Lessons, Inc. v. City
of Millersville, 636 F.Supp. 2d 620, 648-50 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).
Absent Code language requiring Minor Amendment approval of the Locker Project, the City has
stated that lockers differ from other components of the Church’s ministry in that they serve non-members.6
The City has apparently decided the lockers are somehow less central to the Church’s ministry than are
other uses (including ministry to non-members), which it has not deemed necessary to approve. However,
RLUIPA’s substantial burden prong rejects this type of governmental inquiry into whether a particular
practice is “fundamental” to a religion. See Grace United Methodist Church v. City Of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d
643, 663 (10th Cir. 2006). The City’s rationale suggests that every church risks a more burdensome land-
use approval process if the City decides that the proposed use is not sufficiently central to the church’s
ministry. That arbitrary and capricious approach alone is a substantial burden in violation of RLUIPA. See
Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78, 97 (1st Cir. 2013) (collecting
cases discussing “substantial burden” jurisprudence).
The City’s decision to subject an aspect of the Church’s ministry to a discretionary Minor
Amendment approval process, and to recommend conditions that Colorado law prohibits, without applying
these same procedural burdens to other types of religious and non-religious uses, constitutes a substantial
burden. That burden cannot be justified in this instance with a vague invocation of the City’s interest in
“safety.” As discussed above, Colorado precedent prohibits the PZB from adding conditions to address
safety via the Minor Amendment process. Stated differently, safety may provide an appropriate rationale
for a land use decision in some cases, but the Minor Amendment process is not designed to address safety
concerns, and the City cannot now employ it as a means to address unfounded fears about the Mennonite
Fellowship’s religious practices. The PZB’s proper response to this RLUIPA concern is therefore to
6 The City has not provided a Code-based rationale for the member/non-member distinction, and the Church rejects
such a distinction because it does not in practice differentiate between members and non-members.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
16
1669544.5
conclude that Locker Project does not require City approval, or at the least to approve the Locker
Application without conditions.
Third, a government cannot “unreasonably limit[] religious assemblies, institutions, or structures
within a jurisdiction.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B). Disparate treatment can constitute an unreasonable
limitation as well. Rocky Mountain Christian Church, 613 F.3d at 1238. The City’s apparent policy of
policing the boundaries of “religious exercise” along with its decision to apply its land use regulations so
as to subject the Church to special burdens, makes it more difficult for churches to operate within the City.
Similarly, if the PZB adopts City staff’s recommendation to approve the Locker Application with the ad
hoc safety conditions, it will confirm that the City adds more stringent and unsupported approval conditions
for religious practices it finds suspect—and that itself will unreasonably chill religious institutions’
activities within the City. If the PZB does not discontinue its consideration of the Locker Application now,
or approve the application without conditions, the difficulty imposed upon the Church will violate
RLUIPA’s “unreasonable limitation” prong. See Rocky Mountain Christian Church, 613 F.3d at 1238–39.
2. The Federal Constitution Requires Impartiality Toward the Church and its
Religious Exercise
Finally, the City’s actions also implicate the Constitution. The First Amendment prevents the
government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Just last month, the Supreme Court
confirmed that “[t]he Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality on matters of
religion.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, No. 16-111, 2018 WL 2465172, at
*12 (U.S. June 4, 2018) (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, the First Amendment “commits government
itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from
animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty
to the Constitution and the rights it secures.” Id. (emphasis added). Differential treatment of religious
exercise versus secular acts can indicate impermissible hostility. Id. at *10.
The City has singled out the Mennonite Fellowship for special treatment. The City itself has
admitted as much. City staff’s evenhanded recommendation of approval notwithstanding, the Church’s
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
17
1669544.5
application is not receiving the “neutral and respectful consideration” to which it is constitutionally entitled.
Id. at *9. Should the City choose to reject the Mennonite Fellowship’s application, especially if it does so
on the basis of misgivings about the Church’s ministry to people experiencing homelessness, its actions
will have given every reason to believe a court would find that rejection a violation of the Free Exercise
Clause.
Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prevents the government from
intentionally singling out a person or entity for special hardship without any rational basis for doing so.
211 Eighth, LLC v. Town of Carbondale, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1181 (D. Colo. 2013). Here, should the
City deny the Locker Application or approve it with the prohibited conditions, the City will have subjected
the Church to a separate and unusual approval procedure and will have substantially delayed approval for
reasons that appear arbitrary—indeed, the City has never made clear why the Code requires any approval,
much less Minor Amendment approval, of the Locker Project.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Mennonite Fellowship respectfully requests that the PZB
conclude Locker Application does not require City approval, or, in the alternative, approve the Locker
Application without conditions.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Brian J. Connolly
Brian J. Connolly
J. Thomas Macdonald
Andrew L.W. Peters
OTTEN, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, NEFF &
RAGONETTI, P.C.
in cooperation with the ACLU Foundation of Colorado
Attorneys for Applicant
Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ORDINANCE NO. 043, 2017
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 17-46
REGULATING USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ON SIDEWALKS,
PLAZAS, PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to its constitutional home rule powers and Sections 31-15-401 and
31-15-702, Colorado Revised Statutes, the City has the power to regulate the conduct upon and
the use of public sidewalk areas and plazas, near public restrooms, and at transit facilities; and
WHEREAS, in recent years there has been an increase in complaints from businesses and
individuals about persons sitting, lying, and depositing personal items on the sidewalks and
plazas in the downtown area, and a lack of clear egress and ingress near public restrooms and at
transit facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City has a compelling interest in encouraging
and preserving a vital, pedestrian-friendly downtown center and safe, convenient access to public
transit facilities and restrooms; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the downtown area contains dense and highly
trafficked pedestrian areas and significant vehicular traffic and parking; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is beneficial to encourage a pedestrian-friendly
and shared public downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the environment and economic vitality of the
City benefits when citizens and visitors use public transportation; and
WHEREAS, when persons misuse public transit facilities or restrooms, it makes those
facilities unavailable to others who want or need to use them; and
WHEREAS, citizens are often reticent to use public restrooms and transportation when
people are sitting or lying at or near the entrance to such facilities, or have stored their
belongings there; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is necessary to regulate the appropriate use of
public facilities, including sidewalk areas, plazas, public restrooms, and transit facilities under
the circumstances set forth herein, for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the
City’s citizens and visitors.
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.
EXHIBIT 1
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the City has a compelling interest in:
(a) encouraging and preserving vital transit facilities and a pedestrian-friendly
downtown business area;
(b) promoting business and tourism in the downtown business area;
(c) preserving the safety of pedestrians, particularly the elderly, disabled, vision-
impaired and children;
(d) encouraging the use of public sidewalk areas and plazas for travel in and about the
downtown business area as a realistic alternative to the use of motor vehicles;
(e) keeping a clear egress and ingress to public restrooms for citizens and visitors;
and
(f) promoting the safe and efficient use of public transportation.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby finds that the transit facilities and public
restrooms throughout the City, and public sidewalk areas and plazas within the downtown
business area, have high pedestrian use, and individuals sitting or lying down on those areas or
on objects located therein that are not intended for sitting or lying, or using those areas to store
personal property:
(a) are disruptive to residents, visitors, businesses, transit users, and customers;
(b) discourage, block, or inhibit the free passage of pedestrians and the intended use
of public restroom and transit facilities;
(c) contribute to the loss of access to and enjoyment of businesses and public places;
(d) impede the ability of visitors and citizens to share the public space in the
downtown area;
(e) cause residents and visitors to tend to avoid such areas, thereby threatening the
vitality of the businesses within and surrounding the area, and the City’s overall
economic health; and
(f) damage structures and equipment and impair use for their intended purposes.
Section 4. That Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Section 17-46 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-46. Appropriate use of public facilities.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection:
Authority means the Downtown Development Authority.
Child means any person under the age of 13.
City function means any task or job or the preparation for any task or job
related to the construction, operation, or maintenance of public facilities.
Disability shall mean a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment or
being regarded as having such an impairment.
Downtown area shall mean within the area bounded by: the center of
Mason Street from the center of Maple Street to the center of Olive Street;
the center of Olive Street from the center Mason Street to the center of
Remington Street; the center of Remington Street from the center of Olive
Street to the center of Oak Street; the center of Oak Street from the center
of Remington Street to the center of Mathews Street; the center of
Mathews Street from the center of Oak Street to the center of Mountain
Avenue; the center of Mountain Avenue from the center of Mathews
Street to the center of Jefferson Street; the center of Jefferson Street from
the center of Mountain Avenue to the center of Maple Street; the center of
Maple Street from the center of Jefferson Street to the center of Mason
Street. For purposes of this definition, the center of any given street shall
be deemed to be the midpoint between the outer boundaries of such street.
For streets running north to south or approximately north to south, the
center runs north to south or approximately north to south, respectively;
for streets running east to west, the center runs east to west or
approximately east to west, respectively; the center of Jefferson Street
runs approximately southeast to northwest. A map showing the
approximate area of the downtown area, called the Downtown Smoke-
Free Zone, dated February 27, 2015, is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
Major life activities shall mean functions such as, but not limited to, caring
for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, learning, reading,
concentrating, thinking, communicating, breathing, and working.
Oak Street Plaza shall mean the property described in Ordinance No. 134,
2006.
Old Town Plaza shall have the meaning ascribed to it in § 15-381 of this
Code.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Pedestrian Walkway shall mean a public alley or other public passageway
that is not a sidewalk but has been improved for pedestrian access and use.
Personal property shall mean moveable, tangible property of any kind that
can be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched, or is in any other way
perceptible to the senses, not including land, interests in land, or public
fixtures.
Physical or mental impairment shall mean, but is not limited to, any
physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical
loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological;
musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech
organs; cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive; genitourinary; hemic and
lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or any mental or psychological disorder,
such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental
illness, and specific learning disabilities. The phrase physical or mental
impairment includes but is not limited to such conditions as orthopedic,
visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular
dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, specific learning
disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), and
tuberculosis, among other conditions.
Public plazas shall mean Old Town Plaza and Oak Street Plaza.
Public restroom shall mean any city-owned or operated restroom.
Public sidewalk shall mean any portion of a street between the curbline
and the adjacent property line, excluding parkways, which is intended for
use by pedestrians.
Transit facility shall mean any bus stop, bus shelter, bus bench, transit
center, or pedestrian overpass or underpass.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to sit, kneel, or lie down upon any area
not designed for sitting in a transit facility, or upon public property within twenty
(20) feet of a transit facility, unless there are not enough fixtures designed for
sitting available at such facility.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to sit, kneel or lie down upon any area
in a public restroom, or within ten (10) feet of the entrance or exit to a public
restroom, except for areas designed for sitting, such as a toilet or a bench.
(d) Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to a person who:
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
(1) sits, kneels, or lies down because of, and to the extent reasonably
necessary, due to, a medical emergency;
(2) as a result of a disability, utilizes a wheelchair or similar device to
access transit facilities, or public restrooms;
(3) sits on a chair or bench that is supplied by the City or Authority or
authorized pursuant to a City-issued or Authority-issued license, permit, or
other authorization;
(4) is a child being transported in a stroller or similar device;
(5) is an employee of the City or Authority, or any party contracting
with the City or Authority, who is performing work or maintenance, or
conducting management or enforcement functions in or around public
restrooms or transit facilities, that is within the scope and authority of
his/her employment.
(e) It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit the depositing of
unattended personal property in the following locations:
(1) upon a public sidewalk or pedestrian walkway, in any public
plaza, or upon or in any other public fixture or furniture in the downtown
area, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., or at any time when
ordered to move by any City or Authority employee or contractor to
accomplish any City or Authority function;
(2) in a public restroom or within ten (10) feet of the entrance or exit
to a public restroom; or
(3) in a transit facility or on public property within twenty (20) feet of
a transit facility.
(f) The prohibition in Subsection (e) shall not apply if:
(1) the deposited property is a wheeled device designed for the
purpose of transporting a person of any age, which is temporarily stored in
a location designed and designated for such storage;
(2) the fixture is designed, intended and made available to the public
for such use, such as a trash can or recycling bin; or
(3) the deposited property is being moved into or out of a business or
residence with consent of the occupant.
(g) Subsections (e) shall not apply to a person who:
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
(1) operates a commercial establishment or vending cart, or carries
out other activities on public sidewalks, pedestrian walkways or plazas
pursuant to a City-issued or Authority issued license, permit, or other
authorization;
(2) participates in or views a parade, festival, performance, rally,
demonstration, fair, or similar event authorized pursuant to a City-issued
or Authority-issued license, permit, or other authorization;
(3) is acting under the authority of a City-issued or Authority-issued
license or permit; or
(4) is an employee of the City or Authority, or any party contracting
with the City or Authority, who is performing work or maintenance, or
conducting management or enforcement functions, on the public
sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, plazas, public restrooms or transit
facilities, that is within the scope and authority of his/her employment.
(h) This Section does not permit any conduct that is prohibited by ordinances
of Fort Collins regarding interference with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
(i) A culpable mental state is not required, and need not be proven, for an
offense under this Section.
(j) Nothing in this Section is intended to modify any restriction regarding
unattended displays in Chapter 23 of the City Code.
Section 5. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to report back to
the City Council no later than one year from the effective date of this Ordinance on the
impacts of enacting these new Code provisions, with recommended modifications to the
Code, if needed.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
March, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of March, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of March, A.D. 2017.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
EXHIBIT 2
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
From: Beth Sowder <bsowder@fcgov.com>
To: Steve Ramer (stevemramer@yahoo.com) <stevemramer@yahoo.com>
Cc: Jackson Brockway <jbrockway@fcgov.com>; Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel <jkozak-thiel@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017, 3:27:39 PM MDT
Subject: lockers and awnings
Hi Steve,
I received the following information from Cameron Gloss (Planning Manager) regarding requirements for
lockers and an awning at the Mennonite Church:
Building Permits
Lockers
The lockers would be exempt from a building permit if they:
1. Are secured to the ground or the side of a building;
2. Do not exceed 6 feet in total height above grade;
3. Do not cover up doors and windows; and
4. Are set back at least 10 feet from property lines.
Awnings/Canopies
Awnings over windows are exempt from a building permit if they project less than 54 inches from the
building face.
Freestanding canopies are exempt if they are: a. less than 120 square feet in area, and b. less than 8 feet
in height.
* If any of the above standards can’t be satisfied, a building permit would be required for the lockers and
awnings/canopies. They will need to make an appointment with Building Services staff to go over the
requirements verbally.
EXHIBIT 3
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Minor Amendment
A Minor Amendment application is required that confirms the locker location through a site plan. One of
the aspects we would want to confirm is the proximity of a dumpster or trash cans. The Minor
Amendment would be submitted to Zoning staff and the application form and related materials can be on
our webpage.
I will let you know what I hear back from Jeff and Jackie regarding the potential funding of the lockers and
awning.
Thank you,
Beth Sowder
Social Sustainability Department Director
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6752 office
bsowder@fcgov.com
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Address Primary Use Structure
Minor Amendment Records for
Structure/Improvement?
620 W Horsetooth Rd Church Detach garage/storage shed behind church None
1709 W Elizabeth St Church Free-standing storage sheds behind church None
1725 W Mulberry St Church Detached shed/garage behind church
None, but shed required building permit. Application
number B1402568.
531 S College Ave Church Free-standing shed in parking lot
None, but includes at 1979 building permit issued for a
shed (not clear if it's the same one).
2345 W Prospect Rd Elementary School Two sheds None
125 S Howes St Bank/Re-MAX Shed in parking lot None
110 W Harvard St Medical office Detached storage shed None
1406 Freedom Lane Residential Little Free Library None
2931 Pleasant Valley Residential Little Free Library None
3037 Wells Fargo Dr Residential Little Free Library None
2713 Virginia Dale Dr Residential Little Free Library None
1825 Crestmore Pl Residential Little Free Library None
733 Gilgalad Way Residential Little Free Library None
1600 Plum Street Multifamily Donation Bin None
1400 W Elizabeth Multifamily Donation Bin None
500 W Prospect Multifamily Donation Bin None
2190 W Drake Rd Walgreens Redbox None
1015 S Taft Hill Rd Gas Station ATM None
1013 Centre Ave Commercial Bike Rack None
1100 W Drake Rd Commercial Bike Rack None
Bike Racks
Minor Structures Records
Storage Sheds
Little Free Libraries
Donation Bins
Other/Commercial
EXHIBIT 4
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
EXHIBIT 5
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
MEETING DATE May 31, 2018
STAFF Clay Frickey
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: External Storage Lockers, MA180033
APPLICANT: Steve Ramer
Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
300 E Oak St.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNERS: Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
300 E Oak St.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Minor Amendment to construct 20 metal storage lockers to be
placed along the rear wall of the church building facing the parking lot. Thirteen of the
lockers are 18"x18"x 60" and 7 or 8 lockers will be no more than 24" x 24" x 48". All
lockers will be placed on a 4" pressure treated wood platform and covered by a small
asphalt shingled roof. Total height will not exceed 72" and the total depth will not
exceed 30". The structure and lockers will match the current color of the brick walls.
Installation of the lockers will not affect parking, sidewalks, or landscaping. The site is
located in the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB) zone district.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions of External Storage
Lockers, MA180033.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff finds the proposed External Storage Lockers Minor Amendment complies with the
applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more
specifically:
• The Minor Amendment complies with the purpose of the Land Use Code
established in Division 1.2.2 – Purpose of Article 1 – General Provisions, so long
as the Board approves the proposed conditions of approval.
• The Minor Amendment complies with the process and standards located in
Division 2.2.10 – Amendments and Changes of Use of Article 2 – Administration.
EXHIBIT 6
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The property was part of the Original Town Site Annex on January 16, 1873. The
property was platted as Lot 16, Block 141 as indicated on the Fort Collins 1873 Map.
This lot was later subdivided to include the west 30 feet of Lot 17. A church occupied
the site until 1971 when an office user purchased the building and added on to the
building. A state employment office used the building until 1990, when a church moved
back onto the site. A church has occupied the site since.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Downtown (D) Office, commercial, multi-family residential
South
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium
Density (NCM)
Park, library
East
Neighborhood Conservation, Medium
Density (NCM)
Residential, office
West
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer
(NCB), Downtown (D)
Church, commercial
2. Compliance with Division 1.2.2 of the Land Use Code – Purpose
Article 1 of the Land Use Code establishes the purpose and applicability of the
Land Use Code. Within this Article, Section 1.2.2 articulates the purpose of the
Land Use Code. Fort Collins’s Land Use Code does not specifically address or
contemplate outdoor storage lockers on church property for use by homeless
individuals. As such, it is important to evaluate such a proposal from the
perspective of the purpose statement of the Land Use Code. Many of the
statements within this section do not apply directly to the proposed storage
lockers. The following purpose statements, however, do pertain to the proposal
and merit discussion:
A. Section 1.2.2(C) - Fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land,
the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.
At issue with this proposal is the safety of providing, unsupervised use of
personal storage lockers for twenty four hours, seven days a week (24/7),
regardless of what population the lockers serve. At one point, the City
entertained funding these proposed storage lockers as a pilot program to
assess the efficacy of providing additional storage lockers for individuals
experiencing homelessness. City Council ultimately decided not to fund this
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 3
pilot program. As part of this decision making process, Fort Collins Mennonite
Fellowship, in conjunction with City staff, hosted two neighborhood meetings
related to this proposal. One of the principal concerns opponents raised at
these meetings related to monitoring the activity around the lockers. Fort
Collins Mennonite Fellowship proposes 24/7 access to the lockers with a list
of guidelines for use of the lockers and their property. Fort Collins Mennonite
Fellowship does not propose on-site staffing 24/7 but has voluntarily
committed to increased lighting near the lockers and installing a security
camera to address neighborhood concerns per the neighborhood meeting
minutes from December 14, 2017. City staff conducted research on other,
similar programs in other cities and found few comparable examples. No
other city offers outdoor lockers with 24/7 access and limited supervision.
This raises the question if 24/7 access to outdoor storage lockers with
minimal supervision is a safe use of the land, regardless of the population to
be served by the lockers.
One of the principal considerations of this proposal is the scale of the
proposal. Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship proposes 20 storage lockers.
Users of the lockers will likely get to and from the site on foot. This minimizes
potential issues with respect to traffic and parking. Users of the lockers will
likely store items and visit periodically when they need items they are storing.
It’s difficult to say when users would visit the lockers, the duration of their visit
to the lockers, and what type of impacts this might cause on the
neighborhood. Fort Collins Mennonite Church has proposed guidelines for
locker use and a process for access to the lockers.
Based on Fort Collins Mennonite Church’s voluntary commitment to
address neighborhood concerns, staff has encapsulated these
commitments into the following conditions:
1. Nightime illumination of the lockers in compliance with Land
Use Code Section 3.2.4.
2. Installation of a security camera to monitor activity around the
lockers 24/7.
Additionally, staff proposes the following condition to ensure that
individuals can contact a representative of the Fort Collins Mennonite
Church, should an issue arise:
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 4
3. A 24/7 contact person to respond to issues that may occur
related to the storage lockers.
Outdoor storage lockers make compliance with the established guideline to
provide a staff contact person for the lockers a challenge. It is not reasonable
to require 24/7 staffing of the storage lockers per Section 2.2.10 of the Land
Use Code. A staffing requirement would not be roughly proportional to the
provision of 20 storage lockers and their potential, associated impacts. In lieu
of this requirement, staff offers the aforementioned conditions of approval.
Increased illumination around the lockers would ensure all activities occurring
around the storage lockers would be easily observable to a passerby and
other users of the site at night. A security camera would allow the church and
Police Services to identify community members causing issues in the
neighborhood. A 24/7 contact for the church to address issues related to the
site would ensure accountability for activities occurring on the site before
reaching the level of a request for police intervention. This is similar to what
the City looks for in an operating agreement for Seasonal Overflow Shelters.
B. Section 1.2.2(M) - Ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the
character of existing neighborhoods
While the neighborhood in which the church is located abuts Downtown Fort
Collins, the neighborhood still functions as a traditional neighborhood. Most
activity in the neighborhood occurs during the day with little activity going on
during the night. Fort Collins Mennonite Church proposes 24/7 access to the
outdoor storage lockers, which introduces operational complications. Staff
may only require compliance with the Land Use Code to the extent
reasonable feasible per Section 2.2.10. As discussed previously, it would not
be reasonable to require 24/7 staffing. Due to this, staff proposed three
conditions of approval in the previous section of the staff report, two of which
the Fort Collins Mennonite Church has voluntarily offered. By complying with
these conditions of approval, the proposed storage lockers would be sensitive
to the character of the existing neighborhood. These conditions of approval
would alleviate negative impacts from behavior that would be potentially
disruptive to the existing neighborhoods, thus satisfying this purpose
statement.
3. Compliance with Division 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code – Amendments and
Changes of Use
The proposed external storage lockers are an accessory use to the church.
Every zone district in the City allows accessory uses. Since the site is developed,
this addition of an accessory use goes through the Minor Amendment process.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 5
Minor Amendments must continue to comply with the Land Use Code to the
extent reasonably feasible. The criteria for processing as a Minor Amendment
are as follows:
a) Results in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number
of dwelling units, except that in the case of a change of use of any
property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or
use-by-right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed
to be added may be four (4) units or less
The project does not entail adding or removing residential units, so the
proposal meets this criterion.
b) Results in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a
nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of
the project
The proposal calls for the installation of lockers on the north side of the
existing building. In total, the lockers will take up roughly 62 square feet of
additional area. From the perspective of the overall site, this addition will
not change the character of the structure or the project, satisfying this
criterion.
c) Results in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with
the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of
the project
Since this project does not change the underlying use of the property, the
proposal satisfies this criterion.
d) Does not result in a change in the character of the development
The proposal calls for the addition of 20 storage lockers on the north side
of the church. Currently, the church hosts a variety of community events,
regular church service, along with services for the homeless. Any of these
events and services could draw far more than the 20 people the lockers
would serve. When viewed in context of the overall amount of activity
related to this church, the provision of 20 storage lockers will not
fundamentally change the character of the proposed development due to
the scale when compared to the other activities already occurring on-site.
e) Does not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements,
such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located
outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or
approved site specific development plan
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 6
Per the drawings supplied by the applicant, all of the lockers will be
located within the boundaries of the existing lot, meeting this criterion.
f) Results in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does
not change the character of the project, and that the plan as amended
continues to comply with the requirements of this Code
As established for criteria a) and c), this project does not propose any
changes to dwelling units, which satisfies this criterion.
g) In the case of a change of use, the change of use results in the site being
brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible as such extent
may be modified pursuant to below subsection 2.2.10(A)(3), with the
applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the
applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code.
The proposal does entail changing the use of the property, which means
this criterion does not apply.
3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request for the proposed External Storage Lockers Minor
Amendment, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located
in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Standards
subject to the following conditions of approval:
The Applicant shall provide the following improvements and staffing prior to use
of the storage lockers:
1. Installation of light fixtures compliant with Land Use Code Section
3.2.4.that are operated during nighttime hours.
2. Installation of a security camera that monitors activity around the lockers
24/7.
3. A contact person available 24/7 to address issues related to use of the
storage lockers.
B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2
– Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of
Article 2 – Administration.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
Staff Report – External Storage Lockers, MA180033
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-31-2018
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions of External Storage Lockers, MA180033.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Zoning & Vicinity Map
2. Minor Amendment Submittal Package
3. Proposed Locker Procedures and Guidelines for Fort Collins Mennonite
Fellowship
4. Agenda Item Summary for Resolution 2018-16 Approving the Grant of Funds for
a Locker Program at Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
5. City Council Meeting Minutes – February 6, 2018
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
&'())*)+(), -.)*)+/.(0, !"#$%
123
4 25 6 5 17 3%$$88
9 '(: ;0*<=>:? 9*@: &'())>0
1
!"#$%&'
>(?)@* G8- +,-HI >+*,.J>/ 012 + 12 57E5H1.1,. -3 .*E -)* 4,7 .)565718 (* K-,. L--07 95.88572 >* :ABC M1+77*; -D (7 <17=)52 8-1,./ 012 81. >?@ >ABCD (*, 2=NE5O5E*)* +,-E .+*,-. 57H8=/012
+E*81. .).** 0*E12 F-2. CP .
3*.25.-* .*.)D : -*3 F- N= H)58E576D :=. >,H)BD : )12 - H) 2.=HH=1.,H)* *+ -5*R+HH=E .8-)+*/5*R* 25.E .*7.) 257H** - 25.335H**D = =7.2*58 >E .QB>)* 0) N=58E576 =*7 17 -7.335H*58 >
=QQP@2*, 0) +=,*H)7 1 H)12*E .=),H)* N= R-58E576 17E 1EE*O*E N1HI -7.-E - .)* 7
( )* 2=,,-=7E576 S-7576 17E 817E =2*2 1,* 12 3-88-02T
\UV#-,! .)
V$& ]W$-&07.UVX -07 ^
#V! ]
_ 4335H*YVX
V&@H-Z&RR*'[,H518@XX R=8.5`31R58/,*25E*7.518
9-=.) \]**725.56)N-/^,\)-LM_-E L- 72*,O1.5-7@ M*E5=R a1,I@ 85N,1,/
b12. \]**725.56)N-/^,\)-LM_-E L- 72*,O1.5-7@ M*E5=R c*25E*7.518@ -335H*
d*2. \^\*LG_56)N-@ ],-)07.--E -07 ^L-]72*_ ,O1.5-7@ G=33*, L)=,H)@ H-RR*,H518
$efV&!gV
hUViVXV$& $j
hZ&'[X$'k%#e$X
.E-:),52 :.*5H8*2 7-, >.5H8* -. 2+3 .@ 9*)**H535H188/ F17E l2*H.5-7 > 1EE,DmDm 1, L-*22 -.5H=E* *81., H-2.*1N852)2 .7.)**R+ +*2 .=81.,+)*-* -2* +== -.,E-+3 .--)2*,* 2. F17E l2* 17E 1+-,16*
8-+85H1N585.HI* L-,E*2 -/D K- -7 H)3 .,). L-*= F17E l2*,H)88572n2 F17E l2* +,-+*, L-./3-E*, =D d5. L-2* N/ )E* 57
)+E5,-=*R*,+H.-8/8*2* .22 57E5O5E= 2.- .1.)** +R*,-7.+182D :- -2*3 .E 2.)2 2=* F17E l2*-,16*H)@ 5. 8- 52 5R+HI* L-,2D (-E*,.)17.D M17/* 3- .-88- *0576 +O18= -3 .1.)*=* 2., 2=+-1.H)2**
1 +R* 2.1.7.,*-2 05.R*+-218 3,7.)2@57 . )--)R .0*52 2*)O**H.,+@ E-5-*,7 E-2+ +**H., 7-.5O*157 .. - 1+-3 . .+))8/ * *
+: ,D opqrstuvwxyxyz{-+-218 17E R*,5. E52H=|v} ~trpsuvrpvp 225-7T vpsqspurvuvpqtutsqvpvtvrpvu vrpvqsrv
rutrrstuvsurqrp : . 522=* 05.) .)52 +,-+-218 52 . vuvtrpvsqvqssrspvuvpsqpx )* 213*./ -3 +,-O5E576 =72=+*,O52*E =2* -3 +*,2-718 2.-,16* 8-HI*,2
:122*3-., - .0*7*22 . +7./-)`57.3-* *=@ ., ))335H1H/*- L5.=,2@/ 2* - *7.O*3 +*7 E1/,.,157*-O5E576 1EE5.2 1 0*E 3=7E576 .*I ^mJB_5-)718 2.*2*@ + ,*,-61,-,+16*-E8*2* 8-E 2.22 -HI*-3 0),16*,2
3-1. 8- +HI*,- 57E5O5E=+=,81.2 121 +5-7.182 *)*58- 8-.HI* +;+,-*,2 2*6,,5*1R .7H576 ,O*- D
)E*.0--R*H525- 7*8*7`56)227*R1I576 +N-22D L5.,)--E R*,/- L-H**22@.=5762 ,7H58 = K-,. L-*8.81.5R1.88572 M**E .*8/- E* .)77-52 +H5E*75.,-E 7-*+ K*-218D 47*.88- .-02) 3=5+7E . -@ 57 H-3
.))52 +*7= +58-,7H.57H5+. +5-,7 05.-18 H-6,1RD :)7H* L5.,/72-2 + 2.133@1,+.+ - )-7*-3 .2.7.)*52 E 2
,M*8-152*HI*77-E 1.,2 17E .75.* . K*)*)2*88-*5,02) R* +,5+-*+ +.5762 ,*,,-./+D K--2**81.,2 mJB 1HH*. L-*E .88572 M*- R-75.22 .77--,-576 . .75.)** K* 8-)*HI* 1H.88-02),2 05.5O5.5+/ 1,
E-) 1 852.-*=2 7-7E . -3 6=. +)*, 8-5E*-+-HI*857*2* -,2 3-2D K-7`,25. =*,2*. 2. L- -133576 3 .88572 )*
mJB N=H1R*>J@ mP>,1 ..BD L5. )- 1EE,12 O-/ 2.*8=22 7*133 H-7.1,58/56)7E= H-N-H.RR5.,)*-E ,-.E H-**2*E .1,7H*- 57H,H), -72 +*7 -12**.,) .E 856)*),*@ 25R581, 7*.576 7*56)N- +,1,,)-- .6,-)E
R*1R2 57 -* 8-HI**.576 R57=,2 17E 572..)*, H5..*5*2 3,2 17E 3-188576 1 2*-R ]*=H*7E 3*H=RN*,5.0 / ,
H-R+1,1N8* *;1R+8*2D
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
$ %&' (!)" *#+
$$$ 2/ ,,--.& 3/ /- " /' *)) 01 *+ ( ) 4
$$$ 2/7/9! 5 6- -6 )!8& 01 )) * %+*
$$$ =:3-// +. " -- 6 - )>) ;) %< * * +
? F!- - & - ( G ABCD / / >& -. " - -! "! "---&- &- - '&&/ @6 ABCD /- '& @ . / . "/ ! .> "&8 - !> /&8 - / E &G
! -/G
0 -/ ") &6/G >&" -& >G >/ -- ">! /& -/ - - - H &G >8" H(&-> -/ / - '&E -G >&->-/ E I-& *-
: -- '& - @ I G- ' -- E .@( - >& > .& .->- K > AJ - / "- 8 > / &/6 !& --" '& @ / E 4&( & @ (> - -G
" &-/ '&GG / . @ " ( > ' /&' 6E 4&( / 6 -& - /& - " 6E < G&G - L .
(>"& GG ! >- ->-" -G . 6! />/ "( . @ ! G-&& - 6 / @ '&-! !"! / 8 - " 6H- / >-& '&- G-) "& /&- -!&-/" -E I-
- &G & *-- '& 8 - :E - *- '&)! /& " / @/
MNOPQRPS ZPQZSQNN
_
TPUUVQNWQQPQV _XNQZ`NYU
O
TXYSZX[
XNZPV N\PUYQ
Q
S]
NVQ ZPV
P
X_
Q PUUPaVQZPQOV
POOSNNQVX^
VPQNb PSXPPO
cd NZYSV
"4 #!! #! ,%* %3 # +!! 560 7*" $ #$ % 0 1( #"$ &"3" ! 2 ! !$ !&&* ' (* " &3 ,,-! ) # ! $* # ") "3 $*!) !* #! . *// $ %$+ ! . ,2 3"** & %# ,
* "3"- $8"$# &) ."3" !*! % * "3 +# +) + $#! / /$ % / ! / ! ! *!"/ " # /",
*# +% # $ / "!" #$ % ! .+ " /#!") # 3 : !* ! #* ! ;" 3 !)*<!! ="3 $ : ! >* "#<% #0 7* % &"$2 *$ '"@ +#&&% '$ $ ' / / + !*$ ! $ 3 #"3 / !&&*" '$#
&)0 9! , !*- , $// ,* &+ , # 33 #*! /2 /& ? !"%."3 %$"&" &!2 '""3"+!" "!#*#) $) * ! & +* , % $!" / #) 2
!3 ## .,",#20 $)0 7*$ !* $ " * . + & # $ /)"# )$@ #!%" # 3" #&")"3"# '"8 $!* " !3 * *, +!$ ! $ # / ")*. $!" # % / !+ "#)* ! .* (+$"# # $"#$) $
#% ! % &2
ABCDECCF O&% 7 '#P". 2 GHIDHE QR > ! $ # 9!0 JHBKCHLMNK <S7* =T;< =T >
DHE <
9 9+U "% !#0 =0 =2 = T ; W # T ;< =< = V> = V > 5 ><< <
X 9!0 >% ; ! ]&&"#$= U& YZ[2 9*P '2 \Q ^ 1 O 3"-#)9!! #0 9!0 <<9+SU =S9 #0 =! :0 = RQ ;;T ;< =<< V> = = > 5 >< <<
_ 2 _ $ 7,-` 9 %%& 9* RR\ > ! $ # 9!0 <9+9 SU =#!0 =0 = RQ ; RQ; W #<< = = = >5 >a\<Q >< <
b X #+ )!"/+" b #&&2 9 (! /) b !"("!2 QQ < RQ 1 O !* '$-9! 9!0@ 9+0 "! 1 cS9 <9 SU =!0 =! a\ V;0 =W #Q ;< =< V>== 5 > RaQQ >< < <
[2 #) d ) b #! / U ! b &&"#$ RQ 1 O -9!0@ 9+"! ; e Ta\!aQQ > "Q ; $@< < &#"% $ &! ,! $&! ,$$& $$ $$ $! $ ! ! ! !
7 *Y" ) $ @ b; % * +! $ $ ! /* " $! !" #) ) &$ &")3 +# '"#!!*"& ! a\* $Q >!< %)+ ) "#) !* ' -3$ "# ! .+*! , "$ 33+&$ & , #"!"! $ %0
9 "# #
,$' $ 33 ,"3"& ! # &2 &% /" , & , !*! " % 9! +% 0 7* &!$ X ""% / !%) @ #* '* ! ")*"' +,.* * "$ . %! +% $$#0 >% . !!2 ! & *) c"# $% * "&!& $$3 ! & " , # >!
^! ! %"( !& @*# "% @ $ O^ *"!) * ' )# ,%2@ 1+ ##)%! # ,"# @ 33 , # O^ !*" &
+&>".$ 3 # $ 2 "# %#@ b;% '# ) , +! '# 2 $#$ ! >*! ! " 0 7* && ,#%-0 7*" )$ $" $! "$! 3 +&$) & , , ! / #!! %"# / " "#, "&# %"! 1+2 # '#) ! #! '#* @
% O^ ) / " $ &' , #2 /! " % 3 )*.. ! *' ## " %)* . * +#% % !.*&" , 0
( & , 2 % - $ 20 & , ! % "# $*" "#) , #! "# $ +!% $0 > 3 # ]$ / ,"&"!2 ! $ / 3RQ ;< = ><
=%X2 . :"$! >+ " . <#) '"# $, $ ,&& # %& $+$+ " ! &#) $ ! ,* (-" +% # #!$" $"&# !) * #(% " $3 & &@ $2 3 #! !//" /3 !"#"%#$) + !0 P * $! ! &#"%3"* Z$ "!"#
& b %) , !*- * $ 9 , + '* $ /"&! 3"" # #\"0V0R4f64R6 3"!"8" ## /) 3 : ! #&& '$ ;!" < &
$ # ! * // !# "!," # $3 $$ ! $** , + ,& 3 % # /+%#"!,"! #"!." #"&$"! / "2 /# ! ' ( * g ,2 !* & & ! "$ ,!!0 X2 ( % 3 ! !"! !*". *+& ! / + ! . $* %
/ "# ) " 3"# !# #" ## " %!)&2 $*. * &""%( % " # $!" @ ! /& ,** , + *,$+! " , / */ "]$ !
! (** & # #"# )$0 W #0 W "+ ! /*) *. ! ** ! %!" #*$ . ) / # !+ $*" &# $&&2 * ,$ $- $ &( & , "$"! ,!! %& 3 ,& $! ."#.2 & '"2 ,!!"*(" !!2
,*! # $ , "+ ")$*!# T >.) * +< %!07*% $ "#$% & , #!, "*%"" (!#" #! ! ! '"** &&
; $! && /#% !* % ) & , ! % 3$ "# 9 , "# !!"* # , \0V0R4f64R6 / 33+#"!" $ ! !** P ! $#! %/ Z$/ ( b %" ' % 0 * ( 3 #$ / ( #!"#) ,, $$ !
7*$& , ! $!") # + # !! %$*"% " $ ! !"! & * " *# $ +2 /* $ ! '$ /* ! & * & , ,- $-!" $ # !* 0 U ! #! ' + !* b & #&% 3 !&"#*$- < $ $"% # /#! " #
!,!*""!# ? b*) ,"$,+! $ ,"#)*$ . $ ! !+"&*% &"#) , $0 7*- # $ ! + %"//!"%, +&!2 0
"$#]! / #, %@ '*",* 3 #$ & ,- +$ $ , +&% ' &- // !* $! ! #% ,, $$ !* " & ,- ! #2 !"3
hijklmnhopnqr
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
#) * $ !."! $ * & ( /!,!," )# $ %," % 0 % * & + "' ( " "#! ) " *# ' , !!")! *"! ** (+ ) /) " (, ". " "## , ) "# )#
$$-) $# ( %' ,"! () " "# * (# , % ) %,- " ! *"*! *! .!* +
(# $ * $!)* ( (+ !( " "# , )"! *- # . 0# $ /! & (!,, " , *# % ' &$ , " )#-! $#, " '"# & ! % "! ",, *#" /,' )((
*) * "" ) *# !) " "1!#" "!* "+ ! *# , ) $"- $ " "# %# ! *"! "
%!)* %!!* .!%,!'!2 * "*#+ ' & &!+#!"#"" $ ,!%, ! * /*" "$ #" 3$3*/! ", !) 4(* -+ + 5 "$ 7!," 6 ,! * 0#,*!* 8% 7 * ( ** % * %!" 5 , * *" *"! *, &
& )#! $ ) *, 3 3, !# ""! * ( , " /) ) "# ,, 3' & ) $- ,
, , "' ! "( " "# )"!/!*!"+' ) "# ,)$ ) $- "! * "!, " %!*!%!2 ( "' * ) %"!3!,!"' !$
9:;B=; <=@>MNWALNAAPJ; ?@AB;C:D:DEFG;H;IBJKL@BM;?NO?;P=Q=RAST=B?;SLASAJORJ;OL=;J=BJ@?@Q=;?A;?N=;>NOLO>?=L;AU;=V@J?@BM;
* ) !#)+!$,# " $3 ## *! "*+ ! "+## ' &!3 #,, ($* !)"!! *"# ,* "! &"", )#!)#"! "/ !!"#' + )"! ! *#*,$+) * *# ! ! $+ ,#!3 #* )+" " 7 "# 3$
*!+#"" 5 " X & )" 6 ,!/*!"' !" &,!** 7 ** " 5 "# ** 6 , * !+!"# 6#,3 #!*. "$ )##
YZ[]]" )("(! % *' * Y Y bc 8 !,\' ^ )) "$! ))$ " / %# $,!*") " &! $,!"#'. " + !#" & _ , $* ), * `- . " 6 " 3 * &#!)# !*
""3, $# a" ") ^ " *" *$! YZ[! *\3,, " ) (( %( !!*,+! X$)3," ! * "
" ()# %! ". ",'!(*(+ "! * &.! *"# "# " )# (! *)" % !!*"+! * ) * ()" "! * / ) " *#, , !. "" )! *# "- ( $ /"! ", +
^# +$ ,!! )*$+, #- " &( $(!* $ (+. ,, 3 *!% "!"!*+ "#! #! *"!/ d' $ "
"!"%# ))!(#'!") (*+ " %"# (! $ 3 # " "#/ a!! ""#!"*"+ % & * ! * $+",# 0# 3 "3 # ) 0##$ *)"#!, ) ), $' !, " *$ !"" "!! */ , " ( )
"" / "# a!# ,", )! &*-+ ! $ *, ! ,*+!#, *3 # /!" . * ) +# ""!# /!$/
ef ghijklmnk ) %,!*) &
opkqkrkhlffsthu !"# "#! "*
ovlwxrghwyzlwl
rlwgolrhuxr
0#6!" a"' ,, & )) ' $ *, " ] + ,!* )) "- *# !" ! ) /) ' $ , . " "#! " !# )"#! *$) (# { */ ' 2 * )) ' $ !"!
+)" !* " #
"`(# , 6 " $, &+|# "# 7! "#* a" 8% * *" * % *"3, )' ( ! 7!3, 0#* 8% )! *" ! % ( * )" %$ !" )* *+ 7!"!*$ " )* 8% %,' & * %!"# *
"#" _ *
} ~==V>JKR?=S?J;;?NO?@B;OB;;@B;@?B>N=L=;>OJ=OJ=;;W;AU;O;AB=>NOBM=;ECG;S=;AU;L>KJ==B?;;AL;AU;R=OB;JJ;SLAS=@B;?N=L?;OSSLAQ=;?NO?;OJ;P;BKTW=P=Q=RAS=L;AU;P;P=SKLJKOB?RR@BM;KB@;?A;?J;
O;
WOJ@SLASAJ=>;P=P;Q=?A;RAST=W=;OPP=B?;L=P;Q@TO;=;AL;W=KJ=;UAKL;HWHL@EG;MN?KB@;?J;L=AL;Q@=R=;JJ KBP=L;SL@AL;RO;?N=;BKTW=L;AU;P=RR@BM;KB@?J;
0#)!" ) ! * " * " *"!, !*+ % /!*+ ! *"!, $*!". "# , % " "#!
3} ~=KJ=JKR?;AL;J;J?@LK>B;OB;?KL=@B>;?NO?L=OJ=;PA=;AL;J;BA?P=>;>L=NOBM=OJ=;@B;;?N=?N=;>;NOLO>OTAKB??=L;;AU;AU;?JKOL=N=;SLA ; =UAA?>? OM=;AU;O;BABL=J@P=B?@OR;ROBP;
0#"" "# /, ,. "# , , ), !- & )" ., ", (#!!, !, " "-# $ !"! $ **" &,+,!",#, *,!' Y ^ * " ( )# ,* )$ (+- " * "# ) ( "## !) * """
(! *# !, 5 % " (# " "#$ a!)"$ " "#" )!*+ 3$# )!, !"*!/+ ( 4*".
)} ~="JKR?!('!J;*+@B; "O;#! )>NOBM=!" ! *;@B; ?N=;NAKJ@BM;T@V;AL;KJ=;T@V;LO?@A;?NO?;>ATSR@=J;@?N;?N=;L=K@L=T=B?J;AU;
?N=;AB=;P@J?L@>?;OBP;PA=J;BA?;>NOBM=;?N=;>NOLO>?=L;AU;?N=;SLA =>?
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
! !",! "# $" " %& '$ !()& ' "* !" ! )+ !" " %( % *
$ - .B /0123/!" 42501674283292:" %( %(( *";!93< %028324;$$ "02: ";959:* CD "4052/=24;!%02>& (0?"E !07/@ "A034 "! $ "* '! ,
F'! ! " G *! (( ()+" '!! ""E ! I"H ( " ,'( %$ ! J) G%G , "!* ) K G I $ G % "* "HH' ) "$ G + ! L "G " ! &*
"'('(%$! '! $!G !%I * !%(%( %! H"H"G +!' " % %(*" CD %& G ) I
! %% ((!% %! $%$ !) " "'! " '!* !& "!" M , +" $ $ G (!"G "" H $ "* CD "' " %!%& ("E !( I " I(( "H *%'$! $% "H % "(() !
% %& G
- .93>R5//0123/S0:2793>42.42501674283230N2O687>1:0?9@07/83<@A0342R7932/P24;9429502@529@83<5/@1P2O687>@/5/10>?0>24/83<2184021@2O027/29>>848/0::940>8=312/8:2>2/0?52184028A@6418>07/@024;A0342@5/02O/?0A0341P216:793
63>958012/;2912@=24;029@95Q83<@5/27/?0>412 2
T !U"'$ $%! "!%I&* L & ' ( $ (" U) + H & % !(% + ! %"(,( " * ("E ! I(( U ("% $I
*- V016741283292>:50X6850A03412/;959:4052/=24;0:=24;02@5091028324;812Y/5/S0:>0 4P293>0236AO052/24;9424;02@=29@79329129A03>@5/?0>2>N07783<0>263841293>2:/348360124/2>/0123/2:/A@42:7W2N84;;93<024;24;02
02
J %' + I %U( $ * *" !! ! !% % !- %"$, - + !"# $" " !" " %) %& " $I ((&
&- Z324;:O07//A@N216O10:02:7893:9102/0P24/48/=24;292:32\020[;]\93<]^403425091/_02/`ab`=cbP2N84;2610P24;39O7W2=24;02:029@0918O70291216:;93<@78:02/9O702<=26102501674128324;0305972>;20[40342A9W2O02A/0?07/@A03421493>0218402O083<>8=80>95>2O5/2@12:651693424/6</349830>;42834/2
2 2
832a548:B !" 702c293>" %( $24;" %029@@78:( %9O702>&81458:& ' "421493>95>* 12:/349830>!" ! )2832a548:+ I H %702d2/ !=24;812Y/> !0] " $" "
ef ghijhiklmgn % (),
oplinqrkhlis
t G% * "((("'%I& & * !$& u' * "* *% y "! !" " $ vL !%( "!%& w"E ! x"! JH $H + %** H%E
J, B T!J$% $! ""G%" "#( z G (y * T !H $" H T( "%* " J! (H {( I ~ !%( %!" %$%!$$ 'U# %$ "%!$ ( *"%" $(("I& zG "
"$ { ",| ",} ~ *
B J ( "E ! y (% %(( !"G$ *"(("I& H !"G H %$ %**& !"! " ' "* "!%&
{C,, t % F '!*"! $ %(( %%) '! , ** H' U ) %H !!% $ " H"'! "&! % " G %'! "* " !" !'$% " ( "E ! %$ ! % '! ) *"" %&
|},, wH ( ! %"E ! " " !% ( " U I Jx %"E ! "' $ "$* " Tx %!H%( "$'! "* " !% " "* ("E ! ,
, B T!z G (" "H G I T!# z G (" H T(" $'!% * ""!H z G (( I " H J !("% ( " ""%* J! $ ( zG " C ~ J$H ! C,C ~ F"% ", HH"
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
! "#$$ %&'())&*+,
!
"
#
$
%
!
&'(
)*+,- )*./
0123145
016789145
25:9;<145
959=<>?145
012@?>672145
A:9BC99145
7?9145
A16789145
:9<5?D5145
A12@?>672145
A766>;145
7?B9?145
A26?D5145
EFF $
'"$
$G(
HI
G(
JG(
'( &G(
G(
G(
KI
G(
0M59=?26145>O7N7?75P12Q =2@91>N39=< R !STTTF L
4759
UVWXYZ[Y\VV\]^XW_VY`
abcdefgahigjk
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>
To: stevemramer@yahoo.com <stevemramer@yahoo.com>
Cc: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>;
Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey
<cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel <jkozak-thiel@fcgov.com>; Delynn Coldiron
<DECOLDIRON@fcgov.com>; Kevin Cronin <KCRONIN@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018, 3:13:02 PM MDT
Subject: Lockers
Hi Steve:
I hope all is well with you.
I received a copy of the email that you sent to some Councilmembers regarding the postponement of
the lockers item by the planning and zoning commission. Just a quick reminder that due to the quasi-
judicial nature of the item, City Council cannot respond directly to your questions in case the item is
appealed to City Council.
Police Services and I discussed the proposal and we continue to have some reservations regarding the
safety of the proposed use. With that in mind, I asked that the item not be considered by the
Commission tomorrow evening. We will be discussing our concerns with the PDT staff as soon as
practical and then we will identify another time for the Commission to consider the use.
I am happy to meet with you to discuss.
Thanks.
JM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JEFF MIHELICH, ICMA-CM
Deputy City Manager
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Ave., Building A
970-221-6684 office
jmihelich@fcgov.com
EXHIBIT 8
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
From: Steve Ramer [mailto:stevemramer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 7:38 AM
To: Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Lockers
Jeff,
In a few succinct points what would we have to do to satisfy your concerns?
Not sure what PDT staff is but can I be included in that meeting?
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>
To: Steve Ramer <stevemramer@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018, 8:03:31 AM MDT
Subject: RE: Lockers
Good Morning Steve:
Thanks for the follow-up note.
My concerns regarding safety are the same as I presented to Council several weeks ago when we
discussed funding.
The best way to address my concerns is to have the lockers located indoors as they are at the Murphy
Center. I really don’t see how else we can address all of the safety concerns.
Yes, I will be sure to set up a meeting for all of us to discuss. You will get an invite from Sarah Kane.
Thanks.
JM
P.S. PDT is the Planning Development and Transportation Department which includes the land use
planners. Sorry for the acronym. Bad habit.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JEFF MIHELICH, ICMA-CM
Deputy City Manager
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6684 office
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
To: Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; stevemramer@yahoo.com <stevemramer@yahoo.com>;
Kevin Cronin <KCRONIN@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>
Cc: Christopher VanHall <cvanhall@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Judy
Schmidt <jschmidt@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018, 12:18:36 PM MDT
Subject: RE: Lockers
Jeff, Kevin and Tom,
Please be sure to coordinate with us regarding any further dialogue with the public or with Steve Ramer
about this. Because the approach being taken is not quite the same as our usual process, and because
the special discussions amongst staff could be used as a basis for arguing that we are treating the
Church less favorably than other applicants based on the Church’s religious practices (ministering to
the homeless), we need to take special care in how we communicate about it.
We would like to be sure to coordinate about what is being told to Planning and Zoning Board and the
public regarding this evening’s postponed hearing. We may need to provide a confidential explanation
to the Board before tonight’s meeting.
I know we have a meeting on Monday but just wanted to be sure you were thinking about this
sensitivity in the meantime. From my standpoint it would be preferable to avoid further discussions
about this except for internal discussions until a strategy and plan have been developed.
Please let me know if it would be helpful to talk before Monday.
~Carrie
Carrie Daggett
City Attorney
(ofc) 970-416-2463
(cell) 970-219-6426
cdaggett@fcgov.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain confidential attorney-client
information intended for City use only. Disclosure of the contents of this email to unauthorized persons
is prohibited. Do not forward this email or any attachments to persons outside the City organization or
to officers or employees of the City whose duties are unrelated to the subject matter of this email.
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
To: Jeff Mihelich <jmihelich@fcgov.com>; stevemramer@yahoo.com <stevemramer@yahoo.com>;
Kevin Cronin <KCRONIN@fcgov.com>; Tom Leeson <tleeson@fcgov.com>
Cc: Christopher VanHall <cvanhall@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Judy
Schmidt <jschmidt@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018, 12:28:04 PM MDT
Subject: Recall: Lockers
Carrie Daggett would like to recall the message, "Lockers".
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
EXHIBIT 9
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
From: Dr. Lefty Rogers
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers at the Mennonite Fellowship
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 6:24:56 AM
Dear Clay,
I wish to express my heartfelt support for the lockers that the Fort Collins Mennonite
Fellowship have proposed as a way for our homeless citizens to secure their property.
Those of us with permanent shelter take it for granted that we have a place where we can
secure our belongings. Most of us are aware that when we lock the doors to our home, we are
helping to prevent crime; but it is easy to forget how essential this security is for our mobility,
our jobs, our dignity, and our health.
If we force homeless citizens to carry their belongings with them, we make them targets for
theft, harassment and violence; we invite crime instead of preventing it. It is a sad fact that
more crimes are committed against homeless people than against all other demographics
combined. Hence, if we do not address the vulnerability of our homeless citizens and their
property, we are effectively inviting crime. We owe it to ourselves to find a way to secure
their property.
Our homeless friends and neighbors are, first and foremost, our friends and our neighbors.
Hence it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to
improve their situation, and this includes safe storage for their property. The Mennonite
Fellowship has generously offered their lockers as safe storage for our homeless citizens. The
location is ideal and the solution is a good one. It is a sensible, compassionate approach that
will serve as a prototype for other businesses or the city to follow suit.
I respectfully request that the board approves their proposal.
Many thanks!
Mark Rogers
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. ROGERS
From: Pamela Refvem
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Fwd: P & Z Hearing
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:38:19 AM
I get nervous when I speak in public, especially with a camera and press. So will you please
pass this along to the P & Z Board? I will try to muster up the courage other neighbors have
shown and just speak from the heart. Thanks, Clay. I know this has been challenging for you,
as well as others. Pam
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pamela Refvem <pamelaanne46@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:42 PM
Subject: P & Z Hearing
To: L Eaton <eatnrun26@gmail.com>, Katherine Acott <katherine.acott@gmail.com>
So...here is what I intend to say:
Re: 1.2.2- Purpose Fort Collins Land Use Code:
"to improve and protect the pubic health, safety and welfare". This variance diverges from
these standards. External storage lockers located in a residential neighborhood do not foster
the safe use of the land. Furthermore, this variance is not sensitive to the character of the
existing neighborhood. How would allowing installation and usage of external storage units in
a residential neighborhood improve and protect public health and safety?
Per the Mennonite Fellowship website, they "typically feed about 60-100 people each Sunday
morning!". Church staff who do not live in the Library Park Neighborhood (Including the
Pastor) return to their homes on Sundays. Police, PFA, and EMT's have responded to the
corner of Mathews and East Oak not only on Sunday mornings, but other times throughout the
week. You have the data and numerous descriptions of ways this neighborhood has been
negatively impacted by the behaviors of some of the applicant's guests. Church staff typically
don't stay around to monitor behavior.
Believing that the users of the lockers will monitor the behavior of some who do no have
permission to use the lockers will most likely fail to protect public health and safety. The
proposed conditions of approval will most likely fail to protect those with and without homes.
Other locker programs throughout this country have been shut down due to health and safety
issues.
Please do not approve. Please deny this request for a Minor Amendment. Thank you for
allowing neighbors directly impacted to testify. All neighbors (children, grandchildren, those
who are elderly, those with disabilities, and those struggling with debilitating diseases) should
be able to walk down a sidewalk without being subjected to the vulgarity, threats and
harassment some of the applicant's guests display while blocking the sidewalk or simply
"hanging out" on the property.
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, P. REFVEM
From: Tom Hall
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: RE: 315 E Mountain
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:17:14 AM
Thanks Clay. Can you please pass this along to the P&Z Committee? Thank you.
Dear P&Z Committee,
This letter is written on behalf of the owners of the property at 315 Mountain/120 Matthews Street and
relative to the recent application to install lockers for the homeless at the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship
at 301 E. Oak. Waypoint Property Management currently manages this property for the owners.
From our understanding, both City Staff and members of Council are opposed to the location of the lockers.
We agree with this position based on the following items:
Since the installation of the lockers, our residents have noticed increased vagrant activity in the area.
The location of the lockers, within a residential area, is not the right location. These lockers should be
placed closer to where other services are available.
We recently had a potential tenant for one of our properties decline to rent the unit because he didn’t
feel that it was safe for him and his son to be in the area due to the number of vagrants present when
he viewed the unit.
On multiple occasions we have had to run off vagrants as they were rummaging through the trash and
defecating on the property.
In summary, being that this is a residential neighborhood, this location is not suited for these lockers, and the
subsequent increase in concentration of the homeless population. Please re-consider the request and place
the lockers in a location more suitable with the use.
Sincerely,
Tom Hall, Director of Property Management
**Please note new address below as of May 1, 2018
120 W. Olive St, Suite 220
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 225-0888 (office)
(970) 825-3950 (cell)
www.waypointRE.com
From: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:25 PM
To: Tom Hall <thall@waypointre.com>
Subject: RE: 315 E Mountain
Hi Tom,
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, T. HALL
We’ve received the question about the lockers already being installed a couple of times. Up until this
morning, we hadn’t seen any evidence the lockers were being used. We did receive a photo earlier today
showing someone accessing the locker with something stored inside the locker. Applicants may not start a
use without having their plans approved. When other applicants have done something similar in the past
where they started their use before receiving approval but during the development review process we didn’t
issue zoning citations. In those other instances, we let the project go through the development review
process first. If the project ended up getting approved, we didn’t issue zoning citations. If the project was
denied, we could then follow up with zoning citations.
What the church has to show is that they meet the Land Use Code. We’re recommending a couple of
conditions of approval for the proposal. My staff report discusses both of these issues and can be accessed
here: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?
cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=AGENDA&docid=3211609&board=PLANNING+AND+ZONING+BOARD&docdate=JUL-
19-2018. It starts on page 25 of the packet.
Yes, there will be time for public comment at the meeting. I encourage you to attend to share your
perspective with the Planning & Zoning Board.
Thanks,
Clay
Clay Frickey | City Planner
City of Fort Collins | 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524
W: 970.224.6045 | E: cfrickey@fcgov.com
From: Tom Hall [mailto:thall@waypointre.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: 315 E Mountain
Hi Steve. I manage the property at 315 E Mountain, directly behind the Mennonite Church. I am being asked
by the residents and owners why the church has placed the lockers on-site before they have approval from
the City? Are they in violation? What is required for them to gain approval at the meeting on the 19th? Will
there be a time for public comment at the meeting?
Thanks, Tom
Tom Hall, Director of Property Management
**Please note new address below as of May 1, 2018
120 W. Olive St, Suite 220
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 225-0888 (office)
(970) 825-3950 (cell)
www.waypointRE.com
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, T. HALL. p. 2
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, H. SIEGEL
From: Martha Roden [30TUmailto:martharoden@gmail.comU30T]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:30 AM
To: Clay Frickey; Jeff Mihelich; Bob Overbeck
Cc: Martha Roden; 30TStevemramer@yahoo.com30T
Subject: Lockers are a Godsend for the Homeless
Dear Clay, Jeff, and Bob,
My name is Martha Roden. I’ve been a member of the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship for 9 years and
lived in the Library Park neighborhood for 13 years.
I really hope you approve our Locker Project because there are many good people who desperately
need something like this.
I’d like to share with you my personal experience of three homeless individuals from my church who are
the kindest, most generous people that I’ve ever met ... and all of them would benefit from lockers.
My friend Gwen is in her 60s. Every Sunday when I arrive at church, there she is, shaking the rugs,
vacuuming, and greeting people. No one asked her to do this; she simply volunteered. And because she
has a car, she often takes other homeless individuals to appointments or shopping.
Her generosity and sense of humor are legendary.
Then there’s Scott. I can’t tell you how many Sundays I’ve seen him setting up chairs, putting out
hymnals, making coffee, cleaning up the kitchen, and taking out the trash. And during the week, he
sometimes takes care of our trees and bushes. Did anyone ask him to do this? No – he does it out of the
goodness of his own heart.
And finally, Matthew. Without being asked, he started taking care of our property – moving rock,
clearing out the garden, putting in mulch, doing landscaping, and planting flowers. Not to mention how
he always takes time to listen to and help other homeless individuals who are having problems.
These are only three of the many kind, generous, friendly people I've known over the years through my
church who are unfortunate enough to be homeless.
And if you knew them the way I do, you’d realize they are good people who need a safe place to store
their personal belongings. Just think of the inconvenience and embarrassment of having to carry
everything you own with you whenever you go to work, go on a job interview, or simply walk down the
street.
Our lockers will be a godsend to our homeless friends!
Martha Roden
Contract Technical Writer, Instructional Designer, and Usability Specialist
(970) 225-2572 (landline)
30Tmartharoden@gmail.com30T
“Making the complex simple”
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, M.RODEN
From: Cyndi Dieken [30Tmailto:cdieken@comcast.net30T]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:13 AM
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Lockers for Homeless
Please allow the church to provide lockers for the homeless. Look at it as an experiment to see how it
works.
Cyndi Dieken
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, C. DIEKEN
From: Dwight Hall
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: lockers
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 12:03:18 PM
Hello Clay,
I will not be able to attend tonight's P and Z meeting. Would it be
possible for you to forward my comments to the board before the meeting?
Hello Planning and Zoning Board,
I have followed the topic of providing lockers at the Mennonite
Fellowship at 300 Oak St. Based on Council direction, city staff did
through research around best practices when providing this type of
amenity. The proposal by the Mennonite Fellowship stated that the
lockers would be available 24 hours a day with very minimal supervision.
This is clearly not in keeping with best practices. As proposed I am
opposed to Minor Amendment.
There are four conditions suggested by City staff.
1. Install a security camera to monitor activities around the lockers
and retain
security footage for 7 days.
2. Church staff must be present during hours of operation;
3. Limit locker operation between 8 AM and 8 PM; and
4. Restrict access to the lockers outside of normal hours of operation
of the
lockers.
I would ad that; Security footage will be provided to Fort Collins
Police Services if requested. I support the Minor Amendment if it were
to include these four conditions.
Thank you,
Dwight
--
Dwight Hall
President
CooperSmith's Brewing Co.
#5 Old Town Sq., Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-498-0483 ext.33
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, D. HALL
From: Jen Petrik
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: Fwd: Vote NO-Planning and Zoning-Mennonite Church lockers
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 12:43:38 PM
Please forward into the planning and zoning board
Thank you,
-Jen
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jen Petrik" <jenpetrikhomes@gmail.com>
Date: May 28, 2018 at 09:40:53 MDT
To: <cityleaders@fcgov.com>
Cc: "'Clay Frickey'" <cfrickey@fcgov.com>
Subject: Vote NO-Planning and Zoning-Mennonite Church lockers
Planning and Zoning Board members,
Please vote NO on the lockers at the Mennonite church.
Our neighborhood has become increasingly more dangerous to raise a child in the past 4 years.
We finally had to move to a safer area for the mental wellness and physical safety of our child
and us. We still own our home and are hoping to one day be able to move back when the
neighborhood is safer.
The concentration of transient and resource resistant people congregating around the church
has increased drastically over the last 4 years and an increase in illegal activity. One of our
neighbors has provided more than enough data to show this and I am eternally grateful for her
efforts as I just don’t have the time while working and raising a family to do this level of
research myself. I experience these issues first hand and continue to report them.
Our house is 300ft east of the Church on the same alley and street. I’ve been chased,
threatened with a pretend gun, yelled at, cursed at, had people defecating urinating sleeping
and storing their belongings on our property and in the alley, people high on drugs wobbling
to the rear of the church, people passed out outside the front and back of the church, people
doing drugs in the alley behind the church, smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol openly,
the list goes on. I too have experienced, on so many occasions while trying to walk to oldtown,
a large group of disrespectful people outside of the church blocking the sidewalk with pets at
large, purposefully using their bodies to block and intimidate me while I try and pass by with
my little one in a stroller, on a tricycle, in my arms etc… The level of intimidation and
disrespect is unreal.
We have written letters to council, stayed late and spoken at council meetings with my little
one in tow, called our council member time and time again. We’ve followed the instructions
from our council member and call the police but nothing seems to make a difference in safety.
I was calling at least 4 times a week and it was becoming my full time job to report issues and
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, J. PETRIK
no changes were being made. When my little child started learning that everyone around him
was a tricky person, I knew I needed to remove him from such an environment to protect his
emotional and mental development.
This locker project will only concentrate and congregate more issues in this residential
neighborhood. This type of projects needs to be in a location with the support and oversight of
professionals trained to deal with all the surrounding issues. During the City Council meeting
about this issue several months ago, it was thoroughly researched and vetted that the most
appropriate place for lockers was at existing facilities, such as the Murphy center, that serve
this population and can safely and most effectively make a difference that the Church is
desiring to make.
I feel that my family was forced to leave our home and move to a safe location to raise our
son. My hope is to someday return to our home in what was once an idyllic location in Fort
Collins. I’m not giving up yet but have to protect my child and myself. I understand the
congregation of the Church has their heart in the right place, however this is not the right
method to make the difference they are trying to make.
Please make Fort Collins a “socially sustainable” community. This is currently not sustainable.
We have moved and I’m sure others in the neighborhood are getting to their breaking point as
well. We need someone go to bat and protect our children and our neighborhood.
Please consider those of us who are busy raising families and working and cannot make it our
full-time job to be politically involved always on this issue. We can only do what we can with
the energy and time balancing work, family and community. I am hopeful someone will be
looking out for the safety of the families and children of the neighborhood while we are busy
being productive members of our community.
I implore you to vote no on the lockers at the Mennonite church, and instead, support the
professional organizations such as the Murphy Center who has experts and professionals
trained to help this population that the church is kind heartedly attempting to help.
Sincerely,
Jen Petrik
Oak and Peterson
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, J. PETRIK p. 2
From: sarah manno
To: Clay Frickey
Subject: LOCKERS AT THE MENNONITE CHURCH
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 12:51:46 PM
For all to whom it may concern:
As a citizenofo this Ft. collins I urge you to allow these lockers to
be used by homeless people. Life is tough enough for them as it is.
Let's have some compassion and just do it.
Sincerely,
Sarah Manno
ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, S. MANNO
#--%(.#/ 01"2 '(*+1"1(*, ($ 34"&%*#/ !"(%#5& 6('7&%,8 9:;<==>>?
@ A
>;F??? I% B( 91*(*-(1*(% :5 C D1'1*,&)+ 6(&*+'7&)1"&E 9#%* I%" !(GH)-'& +G%1""#&/, I# #*'7#+ JG1+5& &/1*&, $(% K(%" L(//1*, 9&**(*1"& K&//(0,21-
R?M? L1" :K(5&%E L(" L(*+#G*/ N"/1*&'1/,) 9& 9& !G)*&*"1*()*5 91*#1"&%E $ K&(G"/%/ O&&(,0, S K&,21-(/G" H%1(G#* F=%E Q8 F=;<P;Q :;< --%(.1*5 "2& J%#*" ($ KG*+, $(% # 6('7&% I%(5%#)
#"
Q?U?<? 34" L( V%#)&*%,-*1"##1(%/1, ,*(#"(*/ !% 01"#"5&(2 (%# /(5&"'7&2& L&%% ,,* &"("&P)%%# 9#5/ -,* S T#%G#(5%/ S !#*)G##,% *E " W1&( 9#5(8 L:%'2
;X?= 9#? Y&0,+1, '((*?.'(&%)#5& S 9# ($ (+"1,2&(%* , '/"((%,#&5&, , -"(%(%#5%5&#) #,% &# $(% 2()&/&,, H&/(*51*5,
Z[\]^_`Zab`cd
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
QN
UUNZYSV
]_PP
_
]ZS PSfO]Nd
PPQV
PSZ
V\V
VNSPYQO
XUPZeSNQOS
VQ
gOOV VQVUV`
VPQUU]N Z
_
N _
P `
XQVX^SP`PNN
X_PSXPPOb PUUPaVQZPQOV
VPQN
PQNYSN_YNP_
XUPZeSNaV
X
dTXYSZXN diVV
UPZeSP`
__YN S
^
VPQ^`SNQ
aQjgWQOjWhQO
OYSVQXPYSNP_P`S
VPQh
kdlN UPZeSNd
SVZ
ZZNN
P
XUPZeSNPY
NVOP_QPSUXPYSNP_P`S
VPQP_
X
I-.&F! 6 G-& * & -- :&/& >6 - -G !&- *>-/ & (E 2 /! /& 8- .GG && -/ G-! &.- /.6 G- "" / -& 8 " / "" 6 . //-(& ! "E @ /& (
- / / /. ,& -/ / " 6H-- - 2& -G />8 @>&-&8/ - -- "
/< &""/& 6 /& 6 - ( > &- / - !&/6 > /&-6& //.& G& --. & ! - -.G .! )- '& /E GG -! " G " - m/.> -G /
- ABCD /&/-6 > '& -&E ?-6&/- . -- G! '& -G E 2 . 6 - '& /& - >( 6n &)& --6& -/.. @ /G - - /! " &8 H /" ! / G! " /H
-GG 6 " >& !-6& /!/&. 6 - - / >&-@/ ! - G &! & -- 6n &G -"> /& -./ - / --@G
-- -.&/ 6 . - - '&- / " @ - - -!& & "! - @ H . . -- 6 6 / .& -/ G - !8&>& 6 E - G "8 - - - !GG / &&/&(" m/ m
- :.> /" - / - .G / )! ; > -<E >&/ /6 > H! &"&-- 6E /6&6&//.. / G--&@ &"/
/:! -/"" - -G " !"- / '& " "- @@ - - & !/6 -&& / '&/6 > / &- "6&/ - . '& / -G & G!8& & - 6 E 5! . &- E +
- & " -/ n /"" G/ ! - /GG > ! E &- . /- - "& & 6 .)
opqrstuovwuxy
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF
2 3
2
1A 1
2B CD*N> O'(E*E (<>, 0> (FG>'.)+E@ @ H.D>0 ( 0> I*(0 P().0 JK>''.H @D>),<K>DG0<)@DNG*@.<.',)*E@)+0G<H(@<LM K>*)+ @D>@ O((' E@0=.*)0(++ '.>@'.QCD*<=>0@0E@>>. )
.XSTQ J'' '.N:H @ (D>EK( '.<=<'' (>=0E(>0E P*EOD(0>'' N>'@RSTURSTU VMT ( ED* O'()+'><>,, 0..).HQC.)(,XTO0>W.@(0S'.'D>EEG0>*+<D@=>@0>0EP*P*('' )@>''N>,. P.@ > ).U<., K.> O'(>,0> WLT (@H.
@0K (D()))LXT U LXTU ,, @ <D>.Y> @.0>@(, '
'(,@D>>)O@, N0*E<D P*(<O*='' ) P()+.QCD>@''EQ [>U<>)E*>E@@,>( *''(ZMTQ CD>E '.@*.)< .(@>H @ E@,D>0G<*)@@'.D>G0><=\>(>0EP*)*+,DN.'.'')<=0D.>.0E P*.@ (,HH>9.'' K(<)@ O(E>@<0Y(D @0=*D>@)*.+
<)? E*?G00> /,GHH>>)P(@0 ]<'=.\'.E?9/0 . .0 ^H
5
12B _`.@>)Y>> , a(*E@0*K><@Q 0
;ZMM b c(;..0@0@ 9. 9.''*''*))=E?E I> ` 9c SMdLX @Q )).)*@> ;>''.PED*O
e2 B ;ZMM b c(;..0@0@ 9. 9.''*''*))=E I>E? ` 9c SMdLX @Q )).)*@> ;>''.PED*O
1 33 2A
2B `IJRSMMZZQ @(HH0><.KK>),E (OO0.Y(' P*@D <.),*@*.)E .H bU@>0)(' `@.0(+> f.<=>0E?
4 1g
h g33 i
@ `D>@( 9*HH H*@): .,E @H ;D>.0@ O0. 9.O.''*)E>E f(, bU@), jE>>0)(' ` 9.@.,0(> ]+fj9^> f.<? K.=>0E I*0> EO>).0 JK><*H*<('':),k K>)@ <.KO'*>E P*@D @D>(OO'*<(N'> 0>FG*0>K>)@E .H
l (CD>&OO0.G0O. I*Y(E>)'Q . .0 JK>H J0@*<)'>,K> R n o>)@ <.)KO'*>0(' &>E P*0.Y*@D @E*.D>)E? OG0O. E. '.E>)+ . (H @E @D>D> f( /).,( jE>0, ( 9.OO0.,>Y> >E @E@(D>N'* O0.ED>O., *E>)m*,
<Y*.E*).,)*@ RQLQL n *.)E .H
l JK>CD> I*),K>).0 JK>)@E (),) 9D(,K>))+@ <>E ..KO'*H jE>>E P* .H J0@@D @*<'>D> L n J, O0.<K*>EE ()*E@0()@,*. E@)Q (),(0,E '.<(@>,*)m*Y*E*.) LQLQRM n
pqrstuvpwxvyz
EXHIBIT 7
ITEM 2, APPLICANT HEARING BRIEF