HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/16/2010-RegularMarch 16, 2010
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 16, 2010,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
(Councilmember Kottwitz attended the meeting at 8:45 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Fred Kirsch, 509 South Bryan, Community for Sustainable Energy, asked questions regarding the
Platte River Power Authority, noting that increased efficiency and reduced power usage would
enable surplus sales.
Phil Friedman, 201 South Grant Avenue, discussed the wind energy surcharge increase and
expressed concern that the increase may decrease the number of program participants.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, discussed the environmental aspects of various energy
generation facilities.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, discussed the
program to provide downtown businesses and bus stops with portable wheelchair ramps.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson suggested the Natural Resources Advisory Board examine the wind energy
issue.
Councilmember Roy asked about outreach for Plan Fort Collins. Deputy City Manager Jones
replied there have been focus groups and postings on the City website.
Agenda Review
Deputy City Manager Jones withdrew Item No. 19, First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2010,
Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a subsequent lease of, City -Owned Property at Fossil Creek
Community Park to Clear Wireless, LLC for the Installation of a Wireless Service Tower and
Related Equipment, and the Grant of Associated Easements.
March 16, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 16 2010 Regular Meeting and
the February 23, 2010 Adjourned Meeting_
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2010, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the North
College Avenue and East Willox Lane Improvements Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, transfers
$1,881,271 in existing appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund into the Capital
Projects Fund for construction of the College Avenue and Willox Lane Improvement Project
to construct arterial improvements related to the Marketplace development. The
improvements are needed to construct College Avenue to current City standards and to
provide bicycle, pedestrian and bus facilities. Improvements to Willox Lane will add
dedicated turn lanes and construct new commercial access for the development. The project
is jointly funded by the North College Urban Renewal Authority, the Street Oversizing
Program, and developer contributions.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2010, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery
Charges for the Citv's Raw Water for the 2010 hrigation Season.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, approves rates
for the rental and delivery of the City's raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these
rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and
for raw water deliveries to other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water
is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by
irrigation companies.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019 2010 Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relatingto o Right of Entry and Nuisance Abatement and Article VII of Chapter 26 Relating
to Stormwater Ouality and Enforcement.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, allows authorized
City employees to investigate and abate imminent hazards to the City's Utilities systems and
to recover costs of abatement from responsible parties. The Ordinance also. includes
amendments that are specific to Article VII of Chapter 26 related to stormwater to impose
more stringent limitations than those required by CDPHE related to stormwater discharges,
to allow stop work orders to be issued on construction sites for stormwater violations of the
City Code, and to address proper maintenance and operation of private stormwater quality
facilities.
190
March 16, 2010
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2010, Authorizing the Conveyance of Three Non -
Exclusive Utility Easements on City Property to Qwest Corporation.
In 1995 and 2004, the City of Fort Collins conveyed various easements on City property
known as Avery Park to Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") for installation of utility
improvements. Qwest recently discovered the utility improvements were erroneously
installed outside the granted easement area. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on March 2, 2010, conveys new easements to Qwest to reflect the actual location
of the installed equipment and a new easement along the boundary of the City's property for
additional utility improvements already installed by Qwest. In exchange, Qwest will
terminate the existing easements.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2010, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authorijy.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, expands the
boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and amends the Plan of
Development of the Authority to include properties in the 600 block of South Mason and
200 block of West Myrtle. The properties include the Avogadro's Number restaurant and
site; the small shopping center at the southeast corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets which
currently contains the Larimer County Democratic headquarters, a salon and a smoothie bar;
and 2 rental residences.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2010, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual
Non-exclusive Easement to Larimer County Canal No 2 Irrigating Company,
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, authorizes the
granting of an easement by the City to the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company.
The easement will allow for the continued use of the City Ditch for irrigation flows. Similar
terms have been in place for over 100 years, and will avoid disruption of the right to run
those irrigation flows.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2010, Appropriating $350 000 from Prior Year
Reserves, Committed to Police, in the Capital Expansion Fund for Crossroads Safehouse
In the fall of 2009, Crossroads Safehouse requested assistance from the City in funding the
renovation of its new, expanded domestic violence shelter. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, appropriates $350,000 from Police Capital
Improvement Expansion Fees for the renovation and construction of Crossroads' new
facility. This contribution of $350,000 will be contingent on Crossroads obtaining
commitments from other funding sources for 90% of the total funding needed for the capital
renovation of the Crossroads facility prior to beginning the construction.
191
March 16, 2010
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2010, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
City Council authorized expenditures in 2009 for various purposes. The authorized
expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2009 because:
• There was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2009 and therefore, there was
no known vendor or -binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies.
• The project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not
be completed during 2009 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for
completion of the project in 2010.
To carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2010 with unspent
dollars previously appropriated in 2009.
In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into
individual fund balances at the end of 2009 and reflect no change in Council policies.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2010, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2010 Adopted City Budget -
The purpose of the previously appropriated funds remains the same: land conservation,
construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas
program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2010, Amending Sections 7.5-24 and 7.5-25 of the City
Code Regarding the Refunding of Capital Improvement Expansion Fees for Abandoned
Development Projects.
Municipal Code Section 7.5 Article II imposes certain fees, titled Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees (CIEF) for the purpose of funding the provisions of additional capital
improvements as the City's population increases. The imposition of CIEFs ensures that new
growth and development in the City bear a proportionate share of the costs of capital
expenditures necessary to provide community park, library, police, fire and general
government and transportation capital improvements. There is no Code section that speaks
to the refunding of collected CIEFs to an owner/developer who has requested a refund due
to the abandonment of the project and permit. The Code only provides that CIEFs may be
refunded if they are not appropriated within seven years or expended within ten years from
the date collected. This Ordinance establishes that CIEFs can be refunded to the owner of
the property for which the fees were paid, in the event of project and permit abandonment.
192
March 16, 2010
Items Relating to a Review of the City's Stormwater Manaaement Program.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2010 Amending Section 26-492 of the Code
Declaring the Purpose of the Stormwater Utility.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2010 Adopting Landscape Design Standards
and Guidelines as an Addendum to the City's Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards.
These Ordinances adopt a revised stormwater purpose statement and new landscape design
standards and guidelines for stormwater and detention facilities. The revised purpose
statement was expanded to include a balanced approach to the triple bottom line components
of economic, environmental, and social aspects of stormwater management. The landscape
design standards and guidelines were developed to provide direction to improve stormwater
quality and aesthetics of stormwater facilities.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2010, Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a
Subsequent Lease of, City -Owned Property at Collindale Golf Course to Clear Wireless,
LLC for the Installation of a Wireless Service Tower and Related Equipment, and the Grant
of Associated Easements.
Clear Wireless, LLC has requested to lease 625 square feet of City -owned property on South
Lemay Avenue at the Collindale Golf Course to install a 50-foot tower and related
equipment to enhance wireless service in the area. Additionally, Clear Wireless is
requesting utility and access easements that are necessary for the operation and maintenance
of its tower and equipment.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2010, Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a
subsequent lease of, City -Owned Property at Fossil Creek Community Park to Clear
Wireless, LLC for the Installation of a Wireless Service Tower and Related Equipment, and
the Grant of Associated Easements.
Clear Wireless, LLC has requested to lease 625 square feet of City -owned property, in the
southeast area ofFossil Creek Community Park, near the maintenance buildings along South
Lemay Avenue, to install a 50-foot tower and related equipment to enhance wireless service
in the area. Additionally, Clear Wireless is requesting utility and access easements that are
necessary for the operation and maintenance of its tower and equipment.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2010, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing
Appropriations from the Street Oversizing Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the North
College Avenue and East Willox Lane Improvements Project.
101
March 16, 2010
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2010, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery
Charges for the City's Raw Water for the 2010 Irrigation Season.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2010, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code
Relating to Right of Entry and Nuisance Abatement and Article VII of Chapter 26 Relating
to Stormwater Quality and Enforcement.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2010, Authorizing the Conveyance of Three Non -
Exclusive Utility Easements on City Property to Qwest Corporation.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2010, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the
Authority.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2010, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Perpetual,
Non-exclusive Easement to Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2010, Appropriating $350,600 from Prior Year
Reserves, Committed to Police, in the Capital Expansion Fund for Crossroads Safehouse:
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2010, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund to Be Used for the 2010 Fort Collins Bikes Program.
25. Items Relating to Medical Marijuana.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2010, Adding an Article to Chapter 15 of the
City Code Governing the Licensing, Location and Operation of Medical Marijuana
Businesses.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2010, Making Amendments to the City Land
Use Code Relating to Medical Marijuana. .
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2010, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2010, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2010 Adopted City Budget.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2010, Amending Sections 7.5-24 and 7.5-25 of the City
Code Regarding the Refunding of Capital Improvement Expansion Fees for Abandoned
Development Projects.
March 16, 2010
17. Items Relating to a Review of the City's Stormwater Management Program.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2010 Amending. Section 26-492 of the Code
Declaring the Purpose of the Stormwater Utility.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2010 Adopting Landscape Design Standards
and Guidelines as an Addendum to the City's Storm Drainage Design Criteria and
Construction Standards.
18. First Reading of , Ordinance No. 032, 2010, Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a
Subsequent Lease of, City -Owned Property at Collindale Golf Course to Clear Wireless,
LLC for.the Installation of a Wireless Service Tower and Related Equipment, and the Grant
of Associated Easements.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2010, Adopting a Development Agreement Extending
the Term of Vested Property Rights for Rigden Farms, LLC and Rigden Development, LLC
for Phases I1 and III of Rigden Farm Filing Six Final Plan for Ten Years..
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve the Consent Calendar as modified. Yeas: Hutchison, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
n
Troxell. Nays: none.
If: IOUT [oil IMRKQFAIrj I.1�
n
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Roy noted the significance of the Crossroads Safehouse funds appropriation.
Councilmember Ohlson asked thatltems Relating to a Review ofthe City's StormwaterManagement
Program be a discussion item on Second Reading.
Staff Reports
Holly Carroll, Poudre Library District Executive Director, and Mike Liggett, Poudre Library District
Board of Trustees President, discussed and presented the video Community Report and Annual
Report for the Library District.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Manvel discussed the importance of the national Census forms and encouraged
residents to complete them.
Items Relating to the FC Bikes Program, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
195
March 16, 2010
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2010-018 Repealing Resolution 2010-008 and Authorizing the Mayor to Enter
into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Colorado Department of
Transportation for the Purposes of Supporting the City's FC Bikes program for Fiscal
Year 2010 Funding Period Utilizing Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has revised the FC Bikes Program funding
contract with the City,ofFort Collins for 2010-11. Originally, CDOT hadprogrammed the contract
for both fiscal years 2010 and 2011-. However, on March 1, 2010, CDOT notified the City that it can
only contract for one year at a time. Resolution 2010-018 repeals Resolution 2010-008 to clarify
the authorization granted under this Resolution is only for the year 2010 and that the amount of
fundingprovided by the CDOT Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality (CMAQ) grant is in the amount
of $150, 000 provided that the City expends matching funds in the amount of $37,500 for the 2010
budget year. This change in contract administration does. not change the overall two year funding
amount; it just divides it into two one year segments.
B. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo.012,2010,AppropriatingUnanticipatedGrantRevenue
in the Transportation Services Fund to Be Used for the 2010 Fort Collins Bikes program
(Option # I or # 2).
On March 2, 2010, Council requested that the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
grant for the City's FC Bikes Program be amended. The amendment was to utilize $15; 000 to
$20, 000 of the grant monies to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to:
• hire a coordinator to write a Bike Safety Education Plan
• act as a liaison to help coordinate the Safe Routes to Schools grant
• develop the concept of a Master Cyclistprogram (in the context of the Bike Safety Education
Plan)
• explore the use of BOB fiends to help build a Bike Safety Town in one of the City's parks
Staff explored the possibility of adding the objectives of the proposed amendment to the FC Bikes
scope of work with the Colorado Department of Transportation and the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization. Both, organizations advised staff against adjusting the scope
of work because some of the activities within the proposed amendment were not permissible using
CMAQ funding and that the proposed changes to the scope of work would further delay the funding
to June 2010 and/or jeopardize the funding altogether. The Bicycle Advisory Committee also
discussed the proposed amendment at its March 8, 2010 regular meeting. A motion was passed (6-
2) recommending that the Ordinance be approved by the Council in its original form without
amendment (Option #1).
C. Resolution 2010-019 Directing CityManager to Pursue the Concept of a "Master Cyclist"
program and a "Bike Safety Town" in the Development of the Bike Safety Education
Plan.
196
March 16, 2010
Resolution 2010-019 directs staffto create a Bicycle Safety and Education Plan, develop the concept
Of a master Cyclist program, explore the use of annual Building on Basics revenues to potentially
assist in the construction of a "`Bike Safety Town "in one of the City's parks and coordinate the Bike
Safety and Education Plan Project closely with the Safe Routes to School program. "
David Kemp, Bike Coordinator, discussed the grant -funded FC Bikes Program.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2010-018.
Councilmember Manvel expressed support for the FC Bikes Program and for the additional
emphasis on safety aspects of biking.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchison, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Option #1 of
Ordinance No. 012, 2010, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchison, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none. i
11!!'7• 1"I
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2010-019.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff for bringing this Resolution forward. I
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchison, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 034, 2010,
Adopting a Development Agreement Extending the Term of Vested Property
Rights for Rigden Farms, LLC and Rigden Development, LLC for Phases II
and III of Rigden Farm Filing Six Final Plan for Ten Years, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This proposed Ordinance adopting a Development Agreement Extending the Term of Vested Rights
for Rigden Farm Filing Six, is part of a larger settlement of a dispute between the Rigden Farm
developers and the City.
197
March 16, 2010
:: I�CIIZIIij�L �YIYIICIC�1[IlU
Litigation has arisen between Rigden Farms, LLC, Rigden Development, LLC (hereafter referred
to as "Rigden') and the City regarding the development ofRigden Farm Filing Six in particular and
other portions of Rigden Farm in general. In an effort to resolve the dispute behind the litigation,
Rigden and the City engaged in mediation, and a tentative settlement agreement has been reached.
One of the elements of settlement is the establishment of an extended vested right for Rigden Farm,
to run for ten years, essentially until April 30, 2020.
Rigden contends that the length of time that it has taken for the public infrastructure to be
constructed around Rigden Farm allegedly caused Rigden to be subject to the current recession and
has made it difficult, if not impossible for Rigden to meaningfully market the property at the present
time. Therefore, Rigden has sought an extension of the vested right that it had for the propertyprior
to its expiration so that it can engage in development and/or marketing efforts.
Section 2.2.11(D)(3) of the Land Use Code establishes a three-year term of vested right, but also
authorizes the City Council to adopt a development agreement which would extend the term of
,vested right, provided that the development agreement is adopted by ordinance of the City Council
as a legislative act and also provided that the City Council determines that it will likely take -more
than three years to complete all engineering improvements for the development, and only if
warranted in light of all relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, the size and phasing
of the development, economic cycles, and market conditions. Given the current economic cycle and
market condition, Rigden is asking the City Council to make this finding and authorize the ten year
vesting. While City staff disputes Rigden's contention that it has breached any legal duty to Rigden
or that Rigden has suffered economic harm as a result of any acts or omissions of the City, staff
believes that the extension of the vesting period for Rigden Farm is reasonable under the
circumstances, especially in view of the size of the development, the level of Rigden 's investment in
the property and the recent economic downturn.
The attached Ordinance would make the necessary finding and would approve a "Development
Agreement Regarding Vested Rights " which would essentially afford Rigden until April 30, 2020,
to undertake and complete the development in accordance with the approved site specific
development plan and engineering drawings. "
Steve Roy stated this item has come before Council- as part of a tentative settlement of a dispute
involving the Rigden Farm development. The item will extend the term of vested property rights
for the development.
Steve Dush, Current Planning Director, stated the request is for a vested rights extension for a period
of ten years for the Rigden Farm Development. Approximately 75% of the development has already
been completed.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No.
0341 2010, on First Reading.
198
March 16, 2010
Councilmember Ohlson expressed concern about extending vested rights for as long as ten years.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchison, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Medical Marijuana, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMV4RY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2010, Adding an Article to Chapter 15 of the City
Code Governing the Licensing, Location and Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2010, Making Amendments to the City Land Use
Code Relating to Medical Marijuana.
Ordinance No. 025, 2010, adopted on First Reading on March 2, 2010, by a vote of 6-1 (nays: Roy),
establishes a licensing process for all medical marijuana businesses as well as location
requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) and their associated cultivation sites, and
requirements governing the operation of these facilities. The regulations also address the cultivation
of marijuana by patients and primary caregivers who serve no more than one patient and who do
not need to obtain a City medical marijuana license. Ordinance No. 026, 2010, adopted on First
Reading on March 2, 2010, by a vote of 6-1 (nays: Roy), provides zoning regulations for medical
marijuana businesses.
BA CKGRO UND/DISCUSSION
The overall purpose of the regulations that would be imposed by the ordinances is to protect the
rights of patients and primary caregivers as afforded by Amendment 20 and to also protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of the community. The uniqueness and newness of this industry
set it apart from other licensed business models and these regulations focus on serving the
community as a whole, and not on protecting particular business models.
A moratorium on the issuance of new licenses to medical marijuana businesses went into effect on
December 11, 2009 and is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2010. Ifapproved on Second Reading
as scheduled, the proposed regulations would take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium.
However, the location requirements imposed by the two ordinances would not apply to existing
MMDs pending a decision by the Council as to whether to "grandfather" those existing businesses.
On Second Reading, staff is providing, at Council's request, additional information about optional
spacing requirements. Those options, and the anticipated effect they would have on existing M.WDs,
are shown on the attached maps.
199
March 16, 2010
In addition, staff has made several changes to Ordinance No. 025, 2010, as a result ofpublic input
and fiirther staff analysis. The most significant changes are as follows:
The wording of the second -to -last "whereas" clause has been modified, and language has
been added to Section 15-450, to clarify that the Ordinance is not intended to track the
language of Amendment 20 or "implement" that constitutional provision, since that is the
responsibility and prerogative ofthe state legislature. Instead, theproposed regulations are
intended to locally regulate the possession and use of medical marijuana in a manner that
acknowledges and protects the rights of patients and primary caregivers, while also
protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public and curtailing, to the extent
reasonably possible, the possession, use, distribution or transportation of marijuana for
unlawful purposes. Compliance with the proposed regulations does not necessarily ensure
compliance with Amendment 20. However, it is not the City's intent in adopting these
regulations to authorize or make legal any act that is not permitted under federal or state
law. Persons handling medical marijuana must be cognizant of their rights and
responsibilities under all applicable law and make their decisions accordingly.
• A definition of "dwelling unit" has been added because, in Section 15-452, the twelve plant
cultivation limit has been revised so that it applies per dwelling unit rather than per parcel
of property.
• The definition of " inancial interest" has been re -arranged and expanded to include all
creditor interests whether or not they are evidenced by a promissory note or other written
document.
• Section 15-453 has been revised in two respects: to specify the forms of identification that
are acceptable: and to limit the financial interest holders that must be disclosed to those that
hold a ten percent or more interest in the business or in the entity that is applying for a
license.
• A new subsection has been added to Section 15-456 stating that the City will issue a license
for each medical marijuana facility that will be operated by the licensee.
• A new subsection has been added to Section 15-458 requiring any person delivering medical
marijuana to have in his or her possession a copy of the business license under which he/she
is operating and to display the license upon request of a law enforcement officer.
• Section 15-469(3) and (4) have been revised to clarify that no more than two ounces of
medical marijuana can be bought or sold within any seven day period of time.
• Section 15-476 has been revised to state that a licensee is entitled to notice and a hearing
before the City Manager decides not to renew or to suspend or to revoke a license.
• The implementation provisions of the Ordinance have been revised in two significant
respects:
200
March 16, 2010
The language in Sections 3 and 4 has been revised to clarify that "existing businesses"
means those businesses that obtained a sales and use tax license prior to the effective date
of the moratorium ordinance and that actually commenced operations prior to the effective
date of Ordinance No. 025, 2010.
Section 4 has been revised to allow existing businesses until May 31, 2010, to submit an
application for a license.
A new Section 10 has been added which terminates the moratorium as of the effective date of the
Ordinance."
Deputy City Manager Jones discussed the history of the moratorium and the goals of the proposed
regulations.
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, noted no City ordinance will determine what is or is
not criminal under federal or state law and detailed the changes and clarifications made to the
Ordinances on Second Reading.
City Attorney Roy noted grandfathering will come into play regarding whether existing medical
marijuana dispensaries will be able to continue operating in their current locations. If so, they would
be subject to all other regulations.
Ian Leverette, Compassionate Outreach and home occupation license holder, asked for clarification
on the home occupation provisions and urged Council to reconsider the regulations relating to felony
convictions.
Scoot Crandall, Team Fort Collins Executive Director, expressed concern regarding public health
issues relating to medical marijuana.
Reverend Brandon Baker, Fort Collins resident, asked that language relating to churches be removed
from the regulations.
Don Cruickshank, 123 East Drake, medical marijuana dispensary owner, expressed concern that
some of the regulations are too strict.
Janet Kramer, 1325 East Prospect Road, caregiver, thanked staff and expressed concern regarding
the lack of available locations for cultivation facilities.
Joe Dice, The Grow Shop, expressed concern regarding the proposed zoning regulations and the lack
of available locations for cultivation facilities.
Nick Dice, 1240 West Elizabeth, dispensary owner, expressed concern regarding a lack of outreach
to dispensary owners and disagreed with many of the proposed regulations.
201
March 16, 2010
Michael Stolting,1240 West Elizabeth, expressed concern regarding medical marijuana dispensaries
being regulated differently than pharmacies for other prescription drugs.
Rob Haas, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the impacts of residential growing on
neighborhoods and houses and urged Council to limit the plants allowed in a residence to 12.
Dr. Dan Korb, 310 West Oak, child adolescent psychologist, expressed concern regarding medical
marijuana impacts on youth.
Phillip Hales, 220 Fishback Avenue, expressed discontent with the medical marijuana regulations.
Alfred Reaud, 1104 Columbine Court, asked that the proposed distance regulations from churches
and recreation facilities be decreased.
Carrie Cortiglio, Health District of Northern Larimer County, -120 Bristlecone Drive, expressed
concern regarding mental health impacts of medical marijuana on adolescent users and supported
strict regulation of dispensaries.
Adam Titelbaum, 1508 West Lake, medical marijuana patient, encouraged Council to grandfather
existing medical marijuana dispensaries to allow them to remain in their current locations.
Karby Allington-Goldfain, 3545 Sunflower Way, supported the regulations.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, supported the regulations.
Russ Orsborn, 420 South Howes Street, medical marijuana dispensary employee, discussed the
demographics of medical marijuana patients and stated patients would prefer to use medical
marijuana over narcotics.
Tim Gordon, Medicinal Gardens, 420 South Howes Street, thanked staff for work on the regulations.
He opposed distance regulations and regulations regarding the amount of marijuana that can be
distributed per patient per week. He encouraged Council to postpone a vote on the regulations.
Kirk Scramstad, 123 East Drake, opposed the regulations relating to the amount of medical
marijuana that can be distributed per patient per week.
Charles (no last name given), Fort Collins resident, discussed the relationship between medical
marijuana and fitness.
Travis Cutbirth, Medicinal Gardens, 420 South Howes Street, opposed strict regulations.
Carly Rockwell, 1801 Creekwood, read a book she wrote about medical marijuana.
Brian Fisher, Fort Collins resident, opposed the 1000 foot distance requirements.
202
March 16, 2010
Dr. Nancy Smith, 420 South Loomis, Center for Family Care Director, cited statistics regarding the
number of medical marijuana users and expressed concern regarding the impact of medical
marijuana on youth.
Cyndy Odenwald, 2824 Redwing Road, supported the regulations.
Brett Barney, attorney for Coloradans for Medical Marijuana Regulation, noted children cannot
acquire medical marijuana from dispensaries. He urged Council to grandfather existing medical
marijuana dispensaries and suggested a secondary licensing scheme that would allow on -site
consumption for patients living in federally -subsidized housing.
Michael Moeckler, Campus East Dispensary, 1740 South College, opposed the regulations and
expressed concern regarding privacy issues.
Douglas Anderson, medical marijuana dispensary owner, opposed the regulations.
Evan Stafford, 417 East Plum, expressed concern that the distance regulations would effectively ban
dispensaries from Fort Collins and urged Council to postpone a vote on the regulations.
Ken Correla, 301 Smokey Street, dispensary owner, opposed regulations that would not allow
growing on -site.
Jim Webber, Clinical Director for the Day Drugs and Alcohol Programs at Colorado State
University, expressed concern regarding the impact of medical marijuana on CSU students and
supported the regulations.
Donna Lawson, 305 Yale Way, caregiver and medical marijuana patient, urged Council to
grandfather existing dispensaries.
Dorry Mann, 1801 Creekwood Drive, supported the regulations on behalf of her daughter.
Noah (unidentifiable last name), Fort Collins resident, opposed the regulations.
Kimber Haas, northern Colorado resident, supported regulating medical marijuana in the same way
as other prescription drugs.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, discussed Council's handling of the medical marijuana
issue.
Joey Simental, Abundant Healing, 351 Linden, discussed discrimination with respect to medical
marijuana and opposed the regulations.
Emily Johnson, Fort Collins resident, opposed the regulations.
Bailey Stanfield, 2323 Sunburst, supported the regulations, specifically the distance requirements.
203
March 16, 2010
Dustin Jesch, Colorado resident, medical marijuana patient and dispensary owner, expressed concern
that growing operations are proposed to be in separate locations from dispensaries.
Kim Lurbe, owner Nature's Medicine, expressed concern that some of the regulations'are too
restrictive.
Derek Golden, 1335 West Elizabeth Street, caregiver, discussed the benefits of medical marijuana
for various conditions.
Halley Bowl, caregiver and CNA, discussed the relationships between caregivers and patients and
expressed concern regarding wholesale and retail taxes. She urged Council to postpone a vote.
Eli (no last name given), dispensary owner and caregiver, opposed the regulations and urged Council
to postpone a vote.
Steve Ackerman, 721 North Taft Hill Road, opposed the regulations.
Cassandra Dennis, patient and medical marijuana dispensary employee, opposed the regulations and
encouraged youth education relating to medical marijuana.
Monte Barry, 415 South Howes Street, opposed the zoning regulations stating they effectively ban
medical marijuana dispensaries.
Ann (no last name given), Fort Collins resident, discussed sales tax revenue statistics and supported
the regulations.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for an approximate number of medical marijuana cardholders in
Fort Collins. Jerry Schiager, Police Services, replied there are 19,000 card holders in Colorado with
approximately 40,000 applications waiting to be processed. Larimer County accounts for about 9
to 10% of the state; therefore, there are likely approximately 6,000 card holders in Larimer County
and perhaps 4,000 in Fort Collins.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if focus groups had been held. Schiager replied focus groups had
been held with patients, dispensary owners, business owners, and residents. An open house was also
held.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens who spoke and asked if there was consideration of a
two-year review of the ordinances after establishment. Sawyer replied that could be included.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about limiting purchases to four versus two ounces of medical
marijuana per patient per week. Schiager replied the two ounces initially seemed workable; more
recent conversations have shown logic in increasing that amount without much concern that it would
potentially be sold on the black market.
204
March 16, 2010
City Attorney Roy replied the limit per person is the`same for patients, primary caregivers, and
dispensaries.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern that the regulations do not allow commerce between
entities. Schiager replied that a person distributing marijuana must have a caregiver relationship
with patients; therefore, what is produced must be distributed to patients. Wholesale growing
without any relationship with the patient is likely not within the intent of Amendment 20.
City Attorney Roy stated Amendment 20 creates an affirmative defense and an exception to state
criminal laws. At the local level, the goal is to fashion regulations that stay within existing law.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the average age of medical marijuana cardholders. Schiager
replied the average age is approximately 40.
Councilmember Poppaw asked who performs site inspections and who views patient information.
Schiager replied facility inspections would be performed to ensure building codes are met, and
compliance inspections would be conducted by law enforcement. Law enforcement is prohibited
from making patient names public. The interest is not the medical records but the transaction
records.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if grandfathering could be done on an individual basis. City
Attorney Roy replied spot grandfathering, based upon certain criteria, may be possible.
Councilmember Ohlson noted users of other prescription drugs are not counted. He asked how
much a mature marijuana plant averages in production and its monetary value. Schiager replied a
12-plant growing operation, with six mature and six immature plants, as per the proposed
regulations, would produce 4 ounces per plant. A year -long cycle would result in seven harvests of
24 ounces each, which is 168 ounces per year. A wholesale value is likely around $4,000 for that
amount, possibly more if it is being sold by the gram or quarter -ounce.
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the growing limits in residential areas. Sawyer replied, in
residential areas, a single patient, or a caregiver with no more than one patient, would be allowed
to have up to 12 plants in his home. There is no requirement that the City be notified of these types
of operations.
Councilmember Ohlson noted there is one existing dispensary that meets the distance regulations
as proposed. Sawyer replied that is correct, under the assumption that no dispensaries would be
allowed in residential zones. An option which has distance requirements of 500 feet from schools,
childcare centers, places of worship, recreation and rehab facilities, but no distance requirements
from residential zones leaves 15 existing dispensaries meeting the criteria.
Councilmember Ohlson clarified there, could be four to eight ounces of sales per week between
dispensaries. Schiager replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Roy noted the state does not clearly
express how much a person is allowed to purchase; however, the presumptive limit per patient, or
per primary caregiver, is two ounces.
205
March 16, 2010
Councilmember Ohlson asked about the feasoning behind eliminating on -site growing at
dispensaries, given it would allow for quality control. Schiager replied the discussion between
dispensary operators and City officials resulted in that regulation as a safety precaution.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if landlords could choose to not rent to growing operations. Schiager
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ohlson asked Carrie Cortiglio, Health District of Northern Larimer County, about
the current position of the Health District regarding alcohol, bars, and breweries. Ms. Cortigho
replied her board has never taken a position on illegal alcohol use.
Mayor Hutchinson noted medical marijuana is legal and Council should focus on complying with
that law while not encouraging unlawful distribution and use.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about distance requirements for establishments that sell or serve
alcohol. Schiager replied that is a state requirement and it is 500 feet from schools. City Attorney
Roy replied schools include colleges and universities in that regulation; however, Fort Collins has
limited the college and university aspect to two types of liquor -licensed establishments: retail
package stores and liquor -licensed drug stores. '
Councilmember Manvel noted security should be as tight or tighter at a dispensary than a growing
facility. Schiager replied the assumption was that industrial space would be available for growing
operations and separating that from the retail operation seemed logical. It is possible that retail
buildings exist that could house both.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about education requirements for medical marijuana distributors.
Schiager replied there are no such requirements. The Colorado Department of Health and
Environment has been given the responsibility for implementing Amendment 20 but there are no
regulations relating to dispensaries or who can run them.
Councilmember Roy asked how many medical marijuana transactions have happened that would
have otherwise been black market. Schiager replied it is all "underground" right now; there is no
way for the transactions to be regulated at this point.
Councilmember Roy asked about the proceeds from transactions. Schiager replied the sales tax
revenue data is just beginning to come in.
Councilmember Roy asked about the feasibility of postponing the vote. City Attorney Roy replied
Council could wait until the state acts, and then determine what types of local regulations might be
needed. Council could also very specifically identify the desired changes and return for a vote at
a date certain. The moratorium could be extended until a decision on the regulations has been made.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested Council could move to postpone until after the state regulations have
been put in place.
206
March 16, 2010
City Attorney Roy suggested resolving the on -site growing issue and separation requirements on
April 20.
Councilmember Troxell stated the regulations have been well researched in terms of what might
make the most sense for Fort Collins and encouraged adopting the Ordinances on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2010, as revised, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson expressed support for strong effective regulations, but did not support the
motion stating the ordinances surreptitiously ban the industry from Fort Collins. He suggested
postponing a vote.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support extending a moratorium which would be
required if the vote is postponed.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern that there are no available locations for production
facilities. He stated he would support moving.forward with a vote, assuming some issues are
resolved.
City Attorney Roy stated the first deadline, assuming adoption on Second Reading, would be the
end of May for existing medical marijuana businesses to submit applications for new licenses. As
long as they have submitted an application, they can stay in business. After decisions on provisional
licenses have been made, likely around the end of June, some dispensaries will need to shut down.
At that point, the state legislature will have acted and staff will be able to make recommendations
relating to separation requirements.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to modify the zoning
and spacing restrictions to citywide, 1000 feet spacing for primary and secondary schools, and 500
feet for all other affected uses, including universities. This is map #9A.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed support for the compromise.
Councilmember Roy noted that compromise would, without any type of grandfathering, allow six
existing dispensaries to continue operation.
Councilmember Manvel asked if existing businesses which do not fall into acceptable locations
given these distance requirements, would be allowed to move to acceptable locations rather than risk
not being grandfathered. City Attorney Roy replied they would be able to do that, assuming they
meet all new Land Use Code requirements in the new location.
Councilmember Manvel asked about availability for growing locations. Schiager replied 1,529 acres
of available industrial land for grow operations exists, not all of which is developed. Adding
commercial zones would increase available land significantly; however, that option was not
thoroughly researched in terms of impacts.
207
March 16, 2010
Councilmember Manvel stated he would not support the motion unless the issue is resolved.
Deputy City Manager Jones suggested the Ordinance could be adopted without this piece, which
could be considered after license applications have been processed.
Sawyer stated April 20 would be a logical date for staff to return with options for cultivation
facilities.
City Attorney Roy suggested the deadline for applications from existing dispensaries may need to
be pushed back should Council move forward with the Ordinance and postpone a decision regarding
cultivation facilities.
Councilmember Roy expressed discontent with the regulation discussion.
Councilmember Kottwitz noted grandfathering is always an option, with respect to cultivation and
dispensaries.
Councilmember Manvel asked what percentage of the marijuana being sold by Fort Collins
dispensaries is being produced at dispensaries. Schiager replied that is a difficult number to
determine.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the grandfathering issue could be discussed at this time. City
Attorney Roy replied there are legal ramifications which may better be discussed in executive
session. The grandfathering issue will be whether or not allow those businesses that fall into
separation boundaries to continue in their current locations, or at least some of them, regardless of
the separation and zoning requirements that would apply to new businesses.
Councilmember Poppaw expressed support for spot grandfathering within a set of criteria.
Councilmember Manvel clarified that existing dispensaries could not change locations without
applying for a new license during a moratorium.
City Attorney Roy stated there are two remaining issues, should Council pass the regulations with
the new distancing requirements as per map #9A: the possibility of on -site grows in Commercial
zones, and site -specific grandfathering. Staff could return on April 20 with a recommendation and
revised language regarding on -site grows but needs direction on whether to work on the
grandfathering issue or wait on state regulations.
Councilmember Ohlson expressed support for the motion and Council's negotiation.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked staff and citizens.
City Attorney Roy suggested revising the motion to extend the date for existing businesses to apply
for licenses to June 30 and extend the date to September 1, at the latest, to come back with the
208
March 16, 2010
grandfathering discussion. Councilmembers Troxell and Poppaw agreed to amend the motion as
suggested.
Councilmember Manvel asked that, Ordinance language referencing non -flowering plants be
changed to include seedlings and seeds. City Attorney Roy replied the changes would be made by
April 20.
Councilmember Manvel asked for reasoning behind changing the language from "per week" to "per
seven day period." Schiager replied the change was made in order to be more precise.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed support for Council's negotiation.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff for work on the item. He stated he would not support the motion
as the regulations seem to be too prohibitive.
Councilmember Manvel expressed support for the motion.
City Attorney Roy stated Assistant City Attorney Ablao will be leaving the City and thanked her for
her service.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the regulations protect the public health, safety, and welfare, as well as
the rights of patients and their primary caregivers while discouraging the unlawful use and
distribution of marijuana.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Troxell. Nays: Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy stated the May 31 date in Ordinance No. 026, 2010, would need to be changed
to June 30.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 026, 2010, as amended, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Roy asked for information regarding chronic wasting disease on Soapstone Prairie.
209
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Mayor
_ATTEST:
1 �' v
IIN
*.�
March 16, 2010
210