HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/01/2011-RegularFebruary 1, 2011
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, February 1, 2011,
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, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Ray Smith 1618 Sagewood Drive, discussed pellet stoves and insulation.
Cheryl Distaso, Center for Peace, Justice, and Environment, thanked Council for meeting with the
Poudre School Board regarding potential school closures and discouraged hosting a speaking
engagement with John Ashcroft.
Dean Hoag, 6602 Spanish Bay Drive, Windsor, expressed concern regarding proposed Poudre River
Floodplain regulation changes and discussed the recent "no adverse impacts" section ofthe proposal.
Neil McCaffrey, 1331 Silk Oak Drive, opposed,the proposed Poudre River Floodplain regulation
changes. I
Greg Woods, 2621 Rigden Parkway, supported the postponement of proposed Poudre River
Floodplain regulation changes and supported additional public input processes.
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, expressed concern regarding the short timeframe for the
proposed Poudre River Floodplain regulation changes and asked what emphasis has been placed on
economic impacts.
Mike Othello, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the impacts of proposed Poudre
River Floodplain regulation changes on the North College area.
Bob Carnahan, 4325 Westbrooke Court, expressed concern regarding a seemingly arbitrary deadline
for proposed Poudre River Floodplain regulation changes.
Don Butler, 540 South Taft Hill, expressed concern regarding funding sources for studies regarding
Poudre River Floodplain regulations.
Mary Atchison, 2024 Linden Lake Road, encouraged Council to refer the citizen -initiated library
measure to ballot. The ballot measure would allow for a remodel to the downtown library.
121
February 1, 2011
Peggy Reeves, 1931 Sandalwood Lane, Library Trust Boardmember, supported the citizen -initiated
library measure and noted it will not increase taxes.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, asked that TIF items have all associated costs and impacts
identified.
Ann Hutchison, 402 Riddle Drive, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice -President,
encouraged Council to slow down its consideration of new proposed Poudre River Floodplain
regulations.
Charlie Meserlian, 700 North College, expressed concern regarding proposed Poudre River
Floodplain regulation changes and asked about the reason behind the changes.
Jim Palmer, South Fort Collins Business Association, supported Item No. 16, Resolution 2011-008
Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an Existing Conditions Survey and an Urban Renewal
Plan for the Midtown Area.
Bill See, 819 Strachan Drive, North Fort Collins Business Association, expressed concern regarding
proposed Poudre River Floodplain regulation changes.
Dan Eckles, 309 South Grant, expressed concern regarding Council's consideration of public input
on the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood and Poudre River Floodplain issues.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, expressed concern regarding a lack of emphasis on student
housing in Plan Fort Collins.
Rich Shannon, 2906 Silverwood Drive, thanked Council and staff for forming the "Working
Committee" for the Poudre River Floodplain regulation study.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Community Affairs Director, expressed concern regarding a lack of emphasis
on student housing in Plan Fort Collins.
Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Executive Vice -President,
encouraged Council to take more time in making a decision with, regard to the Poudre River
Floodplain regulation changes.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell stated student housing should be part of Plan Fort Collins. He asked
whether the URA Board would convene and give recommendations regarding the Floodplain issue.
City Manager Atteberry replied the item would not be put on the agenda, given Council's schedule.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Council acts as the URA Board and stated the Leadership Team did not
find any value added by adding the item to the URA agenda.
122
February 1, 2011
Councilmember Troxell disagreed and stated the URA Board is obligated to examine the fiduciary
aspects of potential regulation changes.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the individuals who spoke from the Library Board and noted the
expansion will provide additional meeting space, an expanded children's area, additional computer
stations and a more open collection.
Councilmember Roy asked for an update regarding the City working with CSU in terms of student
housing and agreed with Ms. York that impacts to entities for TIF allocations should be outlined.
He stated he would be open to the URA Board meeting to discuss the proposed Floodplain changes.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson thanked the citizens who spoke.
Menda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 4 and January 18 2011 Regular
Meetings.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park
The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park will create a public venue, bringing
community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication
of service members who have served our country. The Plaza will be located on
approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the park on Horsetooth Road.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 18, 2011, appropriates
revenue in the amount of $275,000 for the project.
Items Relating to the Downtown Alley Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund, Downtown Alley Enhancement Project.
B. Resolution 2011-006 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
Downtown Development Authority Regarding the Renovation and Redevelopment
of Certain Downtown Alleys.
Ordinance No. 005, 2011, adopted unanimously on First Reading on January 18, 2011,
appropriates the Downtown Alley Enhancement Project funding for construction of the West
Laurel and West Myrtle Alleys Project. The City will be administering the construction
contract for the Downtown Development Authority.
123
February 1, 2011
Resolution 2011-006 authorizes an intergovernmental agreement that City staff has
negotiated with the DDA to provide for cooperative management of the Downtown Alleys
Enhancements Project for the renovation of the West Laurel and West Myrtle Alleys. The
Intergovernmental Agreement also provides for ongoing DDA maintenance of the alley
improvements, to be carried out on a contractual basis by the City at DDA expense for the
initial two years after completion, and thereafter by agreement. This is essentially the same
IGA the City and DDA successfully used for the completed Firehouse and Montezuma
Fuller alleys. After award of the construction contract, the project will proceed to
completion during the summer of 2011. Arrangements for work in additional alleys in the
future will be addressed in subsequent arrangements between the City and the DDA.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the
Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project.
During the Lincoln Center addition and renovation project, an unanticipated structural issue
with the 32 year old performance hall walls was identified . The structural problem is
significant and the performance hall walls will require additional structural support. This
work must be completed before the facility can be reopened. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on January 18, 2011, appropriates an additional $460,000 from
prior year reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and the General Fund to implement the
additional structural support.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2011 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2011 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $726,390, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each City), and interest earnings. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on January 18, 2011, appropriates the Cityof Fort Collins' contribution, which
is a 50% share of the 2011 Airport budget and totals $363,195.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds,
totaling $608,500 for the Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort
Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. Most of the 2011 Airport capital
funds, totaling $1,217,000, will be used to continue runway improvements and some funds
are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport
business development.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2011, Approving a Second Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town
to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries, and Deleting All References to the
Possible Purchase by Timnath of the Vanbg o Property.
124
February 1, 2011
On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath entered into an
intergovernmental agreement regarding annexations, growth management, and related
issues. The agreement resolved certain differences that had arisen between the City and
Town concerning a variety of planning and growth management issues. The agreement set
one-year deadlines for the parties to amend their Growth Management Area boundaries and
for Timnath to exercise an option to purchase the Vangbo property from the City. In early
2010, the parties approved an amendment to this intergovernmental agreement that extended
the deadlines for approval of the Fort Collins GMA and for Timnath to decide whether to
exercise its option. Another extension is needed, and Ordinance No. 008, 2011, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on January 18, 2011, extends for an additional year the period of
time within which the parties' GMA boundaries are to be amended. It also deletes all
references to Timnath's possible purchase of the Vangbo property because Timnath has
decided not to move forward with the purchase.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of Ci Property at 200
West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures For
Up to Three Years.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 18, 2011, authorizes a
lease to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures for space located at 200 West
Mountain Avenue, Suite C.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Downtown Development Authority Fund for Expenditure on Projects in Accordance with
the Downtown Plan of Development.,
This Ordinance will appropriate unanticipated revenue from interest earnings in the amount
of $242,561, from project savings in the amount of $289,294 and from the 2010 Bond Series
"Bonded but not Appropriated" bond proceeds in the amount of $809,145 for a total
appropriation of $1,341,000. The DDA Board has authorized the expenditure on the various
projects and programs.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No 011 2011 Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors
of the Citv of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article II of the City Charter
Pertaining to Council District Boundaries.
This Ordinance submits to the voters at the April 5, 2011 election, a proposed Charter
amendment modifying the method used for periodically adjusting Council district
boundaries. The proposed Charter amendment will require the City Clerk's office to adjust
Council districts on the basis of population rather than the number of registered electors.
15. Resolution 2011-007 Adopting the 2010 Update to the Three -Mile Plan for the Citv.
The Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is a policy document ensures the City
complies with the regulations of the Colorado Revised Statues. This is the 2010 update to
the Three -Mile Plan.
125
February 1, 2011
16. Resolution 2011-008 Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an Existing Conditions
Survev and an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown. Area.
The Midtown Redevelopment Study, completed September 2010, included both a market
and economic feasibility analysis of the Midtown Commercial Corridor. The result of this
Study was an Action Plan with implementation strategies, priorities, and time frames to
proceed with the redevelopment envisioned. One of the main recommended actions is the
completion of an Existing Conditions Survey for the corridor. The survey would evaluate
the statutory requirements for the formation of additional Urban Renewal Plan Areas along
the corridor. The City Council established an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to provide
assistance to redevelopment projects in specified areas of the city and to be an economic
development tool for otherwise distressed locations. Staff is seeking Council's authorization
to proceed with the preparation of an Existing Conditions Survey and draft an Urban
Renewal Plan for Midtown.
17. Items Relating to a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Amending_ People's Ordinance No. 2, 1975
Pertaining to Construction in Library Park.
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance That Would Amend
People's Ordinance No. 2, 1975, to Permit Expansion of the Main Library, Which
Petition Has Been Certified by the City Clerk as Sufficient for Placement on a
Regular Municipal Election Ballot. (No Action Needed)
B. Resolution 2011-009 Submitting to the Electors of the City at the Next Regular
Municipal Election on April 5, 2011, a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance Amending
People's Ordinance No. 2, 1975 Relating to Construction at Library Park.
The City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition on January 18, 2011, which has been
determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before
the registered electors of the City. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an
initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the
proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or submit such proposed measure, in
the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. Because this initiative seeks
to modify a 1975 initiative approved by the voters, Article X, Section 4 of the Charter
requires the Council to submit the proposed measure to the voters.
***END CONSENT'''
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund, Downtown Alley Enhancement Project. '
126
February 1, 2011
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the
Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund
for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2011, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2011 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement. Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2011, Approving a Second Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Extending the Deadlines for the City and Town
to Amend Their Growth Management Area Boundaries, and Deleting All References to the
Possible Purchase by Timnath of the Vangbo Property.
12. • Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City Property at 200
West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures For
Up to Three Years.
21. Items relating to the East and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the
Landmark Preservation Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include
Establishing an Advisory Committee.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood
Design Standards.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2001, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Downtown Development Authority Fund for Expenditure on Projects in Accordance with
the Downtown Plan of Development.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2011, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors
of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article II of the City Charter,
Pertaining to Council District Boundaries.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item No. 12, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009,
2011, Authorizing the Lease of City Property at 200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global
Village Museum ofArts and Cultures For Up to Three Years and Item No. 16, Resolution 2011-008
Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an Existing Conditions Survey and an Urban Renewal
Plan for the Midtown Area.
127
February 1, 2011
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated City employees have donated, or pledged to donate, $53,657, through
the City's United Way campaign. City employees also competed with the City of Loveland and
Larimer County for Larimer County Food Bank donations.
Items relating to the East and West Side
Neighborhoods Design Standards Study, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMIIIARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, Increasing the Membership of the Landmark
Preservation Commission and Expanding Its Functions to Include Establishing an Advisory
Committee.'
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Making Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to East Side and West Side Neighborhood Design
Standards. (Option B or Option B Revised)
On January 4, 2011, City Council approved, on First Reading, two Ordinances related to the East
and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards Study. Ordinance No. 002, 2011, amends City
Code to add a function allowing a committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to
offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and increase the membership
of the LPC from seven to nine members. Ordinance No. 003, 2011, amends the Land Use Code by
lowering the current limits for building floor area in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density
(NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoning districts, by limiting floor
area of a single-family house to 27% of the lot area. Ordinance No. 003, 2011 also includes a
requirement that any variance request to the floor area limits receive a recommendation from a
committee of the LPC to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for its consideration in deciding the
variance request. Finally, this Ordinance also requires the City to monitor the implementation of
the Ordinance and report back to the City Council within two years.
At First Reading, Ordinance No. 003, 2011, was presented with two options, and the option
approved by Council was called Option B. For the Second Reading, Ordinance No. 003; 2011, is
again being presented with two options. Further investigation and discussion has led to a revised
version of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, Option B, called "Option B Revised". This revised version is
to be considered upon Second Reading along with the original Option B version approved upon
128
February 1, 2011
First Reading. Both the original and revised versions of the Ordinance include several minor
technical clarifications to the Ordinance language.
In conjunction with approval of the two Ordinances, Council acted to postpone the Second Reading
until February Ito allow more timefor investigation of issues raised at First Reading. In particular,
Council requested that staffexplore questions about the floorarea limitstandards in Ordinance No.
003, 2011, and seek further input from the Citizen Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning
Board.
BA C KGR O UND/DIS C USSION
The Ordinances being presented for Council consideration are the result of a study that began in
January 2010 to explore concerns about the compatibility of new single family house construction
in the area. Particular concerns involve small, older houses being removed and replaced with
larger new construction. Thefundamental question is whether the City's currentzoning regulations
warrant revision to better reflect adopted polices for protecting established neighborhood character.
To answer the question, City staffconducted a publicplanningprocess to examine concerns, identify
issues, and then identify potential options for changes to zoning standards and/or the design
process. Attachment 1 is the Agenda Item Summaryfrom January 4, which is included to provide
additional background on the process.
The process highlighted two closely interrelated aspects of compatibility: design character, and
building size. Council has considered potential options regarding both design character and
building size in three work sessions. These options considered by Council have included the
following:
1. Lowering the current limits for allowable building floor area in the Neighborhood
Conservation Low Density (NCL) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM)
zoning districts. Several approaches to this topic have been considered.
2. Developing design standards.
3. Funding a Design Assistance Program.
4. Enabling the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to offer voluntary design
consultation.
A majority of Council has found that changes to development standards may be warranted, and staff
was directed to proceed in preparing items 1, 3, and 4, above, for Council action.
Item 1, lowering current limits on floor area, emerged as the primaryfocus of the process. It has
received the greatest amount of attention, discussion, debate, and staff work. It is the subject of
Ordinance No. 003, 2011, which is being considered on Second Reading with two options, and it
occupies the bulk of this Agenda Item Summaryfollowing the'brief explanation of items 2, 3, and
4 below.
Item 2, design standards, was not supported due to complexity and difficulty of legislating the many
variables in house design, especially given the eclectic variety of design styles found in the area.
129
February 1, 2011
Additional reasons for lack of support include the demands of effectively administering design
standards, and past history of unsuccessful efforts to establish such standards.
Item 3, the Design Assistance Program, was approved as part of an Ordinance adopting the 2011-
2012 Budget on December 21, 2010. The Budget included $40,000 each year for a Design
Assistance Program (DAP). The purpose of the DAP is to address concerns about compatible
design. The program will assist property owners building additions or new houses with the costs
of hiring a design professional.
Item 4, LPC Voluntary Design Consultation, is the subject of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, being
considered on Second Reading. It amends City Code to add a function enabling the Landmark
Preservation Commission to offer voluntary design consultation for interested property owners, and
increase the membership of the LPCfrom seven to nine members. The LPC is interested and willing
to provide this service in order to foster compatibility. A committee of the LPC would be formed
to provide this service. Since some property owners receiving design consultation could also
conceivably become applicants to the LPC at some point, committee members would have to recuse
themselves from LPC decisions on those items. Therefore, LPC membership should be increased
in order to avoid problems meeting a quorum as necessary to take formal action. New policies and
procedures for design consultation would be prepared by City staff in consultation with the LPC.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Lowering Current Limits on Floor Area
The Problem
The NCL and NCM zones contain standards for building size that do not effectively implement
adopted policies in the East Side Neighborhood Plan, West Side Neighborhood Plan, and City Plan,
which emphasize protection of the existing established character of these neighborhoods. These
current zoning standards emerged as a problem that may warrant changes to the City's Land Use
Code.
The standards limit floor area based on lot area. In the NCL zone, total floor area on a lot is limited
to 40% of the lot area. In the NCM zone, the limit is 50% of the lot area. House basements are not
counted against the limit.
One of the few points of wide agreement from the study was that these existing standards do not
reflect the established development pattern prevailing throughout most of the area, in terms of
allowable house size. In both zones, more than nine out of ten lots have floor area less than 35%
of lot area; more than seven out often lots have floor area less than 25% of lot area. The difference
between the established pattern of development and the current standards has led to concerns that
the standards allow new construction to be too large to be compatible with the established pattern
of development. ,
Building size as a percentage of lot area is often expressed as a F1oorArea Ratio, or FAR, with the
floor area divided by the lot area. Thus, the current standards in the NCL and NCM zones can be
stated as FAR limits of .40 and .50, respectively. FAR is a common and useful term in zoning
130
February 1, 2011
regulations to deal with the size of buildings. Attachment 2 shows FAR data for existing houses in
the two zones.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 amends the Land Use Code to lower the allowable floor area limits, and
thus, the allowable size of new houses and additions, in order to better align zoning standards with
predominant established development patterns throughout the area.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Option B
The version of the Ordinance adopted on January 4 was called Option B, and that term is being
carried forward to Second Reading, because an "Option B Revised "version is also beingpresented
for consideration upon Second Reading.
Option B, as adopted on First Reading, lowers the current floor area limits in the NCL and NCM
zones by limiting the floor area of a single-family house to 27% of the lot area, also referred to as
a .27 house Floor Area Ratio"). Table 1 below shows house sizes allowed under the proposed
.27 house FAR standard.
Table]: House Floor Area Allowed By .27 House FAR Standard
Lot Size
(s )
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
House
Floor
Area
1,080
1,350
1,620
1,890
2,160
2,430
2,700
2,970
Allowed
s
This approach of stating a maximum allowable floor area for a single-family house is slightly
dii ferentfrom the current approach in the two zones. The current approach states a total allowable
floor area for all buildings on a lot, which may often involve a garage, carriage house, or other
accessory buildings in addition to the main house. Thus, under current standards, the maximum
allowable floor area could be allocated completely to a house, or it could be allocated among
multiple buildings on the lot, such as a house and garage.
Under the proposed .27 house FAR, a lot would also be allowed to have a detached garage, up to
600 square feet (sq ft), in addition to the house allowance. In order to accurately compare existing
standards for maximum allowed total floor area with the proposed standard for maximum allowed
house floor area, the additional detached garage allowance must be added to the .27 FAR house
allowance to find the total maximum allowance for comparison.
For example, on an 8,000 sq ft lot, the .27 house FAR allows 2,160 sq ft, and a 600 sq ft detached
garage is also allowed, giving a total potential floor area on the lot of 2, 760 sq ft (a .35 total FAR).
Therefore, it is the .35 total FAR that should be compared to the .40 or .50 total FAR currently
allowed, to understand the magnitude of the proposed change. Attachment 4 is a table comparing
the total potential floor area under a .27 house FAR to existing standards.
131
February 1, 2011
Clarifications to Option B Since First Reading
To clarify what does and does not count as floor area in the proposed .27 house FAR standard,
several changes have been made to Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Option B since First Reading. The
clarifications described below can be found in Sections 4.7(D)(2)(c) and 4.8(D)(2)(c).
1. Detached Accessory Buildings Detached accessory buildings (most commonly detached
garages), are not counted as floor area in the proposed .27 house FAR standard. However,
there was nothing in the proposed standard that specified the extent to which a detached
accessory building must be separated from a house. Presumably, an inch of separation
would have qualified a garage as detached. This would be inconsistent with the intent to
break up the appearance of a single larger building mass and encourage a pattern of
separate garages in the rear of lots. Therefore, staff proposes to revise the Ordinance to
specify that in order for a detached accessory building to not be counted as floor area, it
must be built behind the main house and separated by at least ten feet.
2. Attached Garages. As originally proposed, attached garages are not counted as floor area
if more than half of the houses on the block face have attached garages. The purpose of
excluding attached garages in these cases is because there are a few subdivisions in these
neighborhoods where most or all of the houses have attached garages. In order to allow
houses in those areas to maintain the prevailing character, staff proposed to exclude the
floor area of their attached garages so that these properties would not be "penalized " in
terms of floor area, for having attached garages.
The consequence of this exclusion, as originally written, was that a property owner on a
block of houses with attached garages could replace or expand their house up to the
proposed .27 house FAR and attach a 600 sq'ft garage. The areas that are characterized
by attached garages do not typically contain houses with 600 sq ft attached garages; most
attached garages are smaller. Therefore, allowing these houses to rebuild and attach a 600
sq ft garage would be out of character. Therefore, the Ordinance has been revised, to
exclude only 450 sq ft of attached garages if more than half of the houses on the block face
have attached garages. If a property owner desires an attached 600 sq ft garage, the
allowance for the house size would thus be reduced by the 150 sq ft difference.
3. Basements. Council also asked for a clarification as to what constitutes a basement. The
Ordinance has been amended to clarify that basements will not count as floor area, provided
that no portion of the basement wall is higher than three feet above the grade at the nearest
side lot line perpendicular to the center of the wall.
Ordinance No. 003, 2011 Option B Revised
Option B Revised would apply a formula based on the size of a lot to determine total allowed floor
area. As proposed, the first 3, 000 square feet of a lot would be allowed a .45 FAR, and then the
remaining square feet would be allowed a. 25 FAR. For example, on a 7, 000 sq ft lot, .45 is applied
to the first 3,000 sq ft, which would allow 1,350 sq ft. A FAR of.25 is applied to the remaining
132
February 1, 2011
4,000 sq ft of the lot which, when added to the first calculation, would allow 2,350 sq ft of floor
area.
Note that this 2,350 sq ft is the total amount offloor area on the lot; if a property owner wanted to
build a 600 sq ft garage, their house would consequently be limited to 1, 750 sq ft (2,350 sq ft — 600
sq ft). Attachment 5 is a table comparing this formula for total FAR to existing standards. Table 2
shows examples of floor areas allowed under the formula.
Table 2: Total Floor Area Allowed By Formula for Total FAR
Sot Size
4, 000
5, 000
6, 000
7, 000
8, 000
9, 000
10,000
11,000
3,000 @
.45
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
1,350
Remainder
@ .25
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
Total Floor
Area
Allowed
1,600
1,850
2,100
2,350
2,600
2,850
3,100
3,350
s
This formula works to gradually decrease the total FAR as the lot size increases, and a majority of
the Citizen Advisory Committee thought that if this formula is adopted, the decrease in total FAR `
should stop at.32 rather than continuing to decrease ad infznitum on larger lots. Theformula would
be applied to all lot sizes up to 9, 000 sq ft, and then for lots larger than 9, 000 sq ft, the FAR would
remain at .32.
Comparing the .27 House FAR (Option B) to the Formula for Total FAR (Option B Revised)
Potential house sizes under Option B Revised depend on whether or not a garage (or other
accessory building) is built. If no garage is built, then potential house sizes are slightly larger than
under Option B.. If a 600 sq ft garage is built, then potential house sizes are slightly smaller than
under Option B. Thus, the allowances are fairly similar; house allowances in Option B Revised
"bracket" the house allowances in Option B. Despite the range ofpotential house sizes under
Option B Revised, its formula results in a slightly lower total FAR than the equivalent total FAR
allowances under the .27 house FAR standard.
One difference is that a property owner would have more flexibility under Option B Revised to
allocate building space between a house and garage. It also eliminates an potential incentive to
build a garage to the 600 sq ft maximum which may exist under Option B.
Attachment 8 is a table comparing the two options on various lot sizes. Attachment 9 is a graphic
comparison of the two options and current standards.
133
February 1, 2011
Other Land Use Code Revisions
Both Options contain two minor, technical clarifications to the Land Use Code in the NCL and NCM
zones, along with some minor text edits. The technical clarifications are related to the relevant
zoning standards, and would revise the way that house size is measured as described below:
1. Close the "volume loophole " that currently allows a single -story house to have twice the
volume of a two-story house. The Ordinance language would count space as a second floor,
regardless of whether the floor is built, where the height of the space exceeds that of a
typical one-story house. Staff believes this will be a rarely invoked, but worthwhile,
clarification.
2. Change the point of measurement for side wall height to beat the property line rather than
finished grade at the base of th'e side wall. There is wide agreement that raising the ground
level against aside wall should not reduce the height measurement of new construction. The
reasoning is that the height impacts of a side wall are the same, whether or not dirt is piled
against the wall.
In addition, in order to help ensure that any variance of the new house size standards adopted by,
Ordinance No. 003, 2011, does not result in new construction or additions that are incompatible
with the neighborhood, the Ordinance also amends Section 2.10.2 of the Land Use Code, pertaining
to variances, to require that any application for such variance of these new standards be
accompanied by a written recommendation from a committee of the Landmark Preservation
Commission, as authorized under Section 2-278(b)(5) of the City Code.
Two -Year Review
Both Ordinance options also include a provision directing the CityManager to submit an evaluation
report to the City Council no later than January 31, 2013, on the experience with implementation
of this Ordinance. The report will assess whether implementation has achieved the purposes of
furthering the compatibility of additions, alterations and new houses, without hindering needed
improvements and reinvestment in property, or creating undue hardships on affected property
owners desiring to expand their houses.
Due to the interplay of multiple implementation actions resulting from this study, i.e., design
assistance, house size limits, house measurement clarifications, etc., there will not be one single
measurement ofsuccess. All of the adopted changes must be evaluated in their totality to determine
whether the process results in more compatible structures. Staff will monitor and compile objective
and subjective data including, but not limited to:
• "Before -and -after "Photos.
• Variance requests heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and outcomes.
• Log of citizen complaints and other comments.
• Size of the "original " structure; size of the finished structure.
Log of property owners that participate in the Design Assistance Program, the amount they
were awarded, and outcomes.
• -Log of property owners who seek design consultation from the LPC, and outcomes.
134
February 1, 2011
The evaluation report will be reviewed with the Landmark Preservation Commission, Planning and
Zoning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals. Input from these boards and commissions will then
be included in a presentation of the report to City Council forfinal evaluation and discussion ofany
further actions that may be warranted.
Other House Size Limit Options Considered Since First Reading
Council requested that staff explore alternative house size limit options prior to Second Reading of
the Ordinance. Options considered include:
1. Increasing the FAR from .27 to a slightly higher allowance.
2. Using a formula for house FAR combined with sliding scale for garages
Increasing the FAR
For those concerned that a .27 house FAR is too limiting, one straightforward solution would be to
simply increase the FAR. The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) met on January 10, 2011, to
discuss the .27 house FAR and alternative options. Ultimately, the CAC recommended that Council
increase the house FAR to .30. The Committee preferred applying one FAR standard to all lot sizes,
and thought that the house size allowed under a .30 house FAR standard is reasonable. Table 3
shows house sizes under this proposal.
Table 3: House Floor Area Allowed with .30 House FAR Standard
Lot Size
(s q ft)
4,000
5,000
6, 000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
House
Floor
Area
1,200
1,500
1,800
2,100
2,400
2,700
3,000
3,300
Allowed
sq ft)
Again, in order to accurately compare the magnitude of change that would occur if the house FARs
were set at .30, the allowance for a 600 sq ft detached garage must be factored in. Then, the total
floor area allowed can be compared to the .40 total FAR and .50 total FAR existing standards.
Attachment 6 is a table comparing the .30 house FAR to existing standards.
2. Using a Formula for House FAR with Sliding Scale for Detached Garages
Another suggested method was to use a similarformula approach as proposed in Option B Revised,
but to adjust it to allow a maximum house FAR, rather than total FAR, and then include allowances
for a detached garage depending on lot size. As proposed, the first 3, 000 sq ft of a lot would be
allowed a .40 FAR, with a .22 FAR applied to the remaining lot size, to find the allowance for the
house. Garages would then also be allowed, with up to 250 sq ft for lots up to 6, 000 sq ft, 425 sq ft
for lots up to 9,500 sq ft, and 600 sq ft for all larger lots. Table 4 shows house and garage sizes
under this proposal.
135
February 1, 2011
Table 4: Total Floor Area Allowed By House FAR Formula with a Sliding Scale for Garages.
Lot Size
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
(s )
3,000 @.40
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Remainder
220
440
660
880
1,100
1,320
1,540
1,760
@ .22
Allowed
1,420
1,640
1,860
2,080
2,300
2,520
2,740
2,960
House Size
Allowed
Detached
250
250
425
425
425
425
600
600
Garage
Total Floor
Area
1,670
1,890
2,285
2,505
2,725
2,945
3,340
3,560
Allowed
' The purpose of this proposal was to limit the size ofgarages based on lot size to prevent smaller lots
from building a maximum sized 600 sq ft detached garage, which would likely seem out -of -scale,
and also to allow the particular house sizes that would result from the formula. Attachment 7 is a
table comparing this formula to existing standards.
Opposition to Reduction in Allowable Floor Area
Throughout the public process, concerns about larger new construction as a compatibility problem
have been countered by strong, widely held concerns that any lower building size limits or
additional design review requirements will hinder needed reinvestment and unduly hinder owners'
ability to expand houses to meet their needs and desires.
FINANCL4UECONO3,11C LVIPACTS
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. was hired to conduct a limited economic impact analysis
comparing the .27 house FAR standard with the previously proposed average plus 50% concept.
With regard to new house construction, all lots less than 7,400 sq ft would be restricted to homes
smaller than 2, 000 sq ft using the .27 house FAR. Overall, .27 is more restrictive in terms of allowed
house size for smaller lots than for larger lots. Attachment 3 is the complete Economic Impact
Analysis.
Due to the amendments in the Land Use Code with regard to side wall height measurement and
basement height measurement, applicants will be required to hire a surveyor/engineer to prepare
an elevation certification to submit with their plans. This will result in approximately $300-600 of
additional cost for the applicants.
136
February 1, 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL LVIPACTS
Stafffinds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these items. One
concern that was raised in the process was the protection of solar access. After careful analysis,
staff determined that there is no reasonable new standard for defining or controlling property
owners' rights to solar access due to the established pattern of development. "
Megan Bolin, City Planner, reviewed the Ordinances approved on First Reading. Two options for
Ordinance No. 003, 2011, are presented, along with the version previously approved. The purpose
of Ordinance No. 002, 2011, is to foster compatibility by assisting property owners and designing
context -sensitive new houses and additions. The Ordinance will increase the membership of the
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and allow the LPC to form a committee to offer
voluntary design consultation for interested property owners. The problem being addressed with
Ordinance No. 003, 2011, is that the NCL and NCM zoning standards for building size do not
effectively implement adopted policies of protecting the existing established neighborhood
character. Currently, the City allows for 40% of the lot to be covered by building floor area in the
NCL zone and 50% of the lot to be covered in the NCM zone. The existing development pattern
is characterized by a variety of lot sizes. The most significant change proposed by the Ordinance
would be to revise single family house size limits. Option B, approved on First Reading, would
adopt a 0.27 floor area ratio (FAR). Staff was asked to review other options which are presented
as Option B Revised and Option C. Both options propose to limit total FAR on a lot using a
formula; Option C includes an allowance for detached garages. The Ordinance would also require
applicants seeking a variance from the standards to first receive a recommendation from the LPC
committee. Bolin reviewed what does and does not constitute floor area and the changes made to
Option B since First Reading. The LPC voted unanimously to recommend Option B Revised. The
Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals both unanimously recommend not
adopting any option of Ordinance No. 003, 2011. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.
0021 2011, and Option B Revised of Ordinance No. 003, 2011.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, thanked Council for considering existing character of
neighborhoods and supported a smaller floor area ratio.
Sean Dougherty, Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, supported Option C and asked Council
to consider the opinions of the Planning and Zoning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Steve Whittall, 400 Whedbee Street, By Design Homes, supported the Planning and Zoning Board
recommendation.
Ryan Schaffer, 4745 Wheaton, Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors President,
stated much investment has beenmade in the downtown area, without the restrictions contained in
these Ordinances.
Rick Hausman, 1813 Pawnee Drive, expressed concern the Ordinances would speak to an average
and discourage diversity and encouraged Council to adopt the option which would affect the least
number of homes.
137
February 1, 2011
Tom Tucker, 3019 Stanford, stated real estate in the downtown area sells and rents quickly and the
proposed Ordinances appear to fix a nonexistent problem. He encouraged Council to not adopt the
Ordinances.
Randy Shortridge, 280 Circle Drive, stated there is no new trend regarding large houses being built
next to small houses and encouraged no changes.
Randy Zitti, 1626 Fantail Court, expressed concern there is no existing problem and only a small
number of existing homes would not conform under proposed regulations.
Heather Landenpera, 280 Circle Drive, stated larger homes do not necessarily negatively impact the
environment and discouraged changes to current regulations.
Jan Krucky, 128 North Sherwood, showed photos of existing diversity in homes in downtown and
discourages changes to current regulations.
Connie Werner, 935 West Oak Street, thanked Ms. Bolin for her presentation and encouraged
Council to adopt new regulations.
Gina Janett, 730 West Oak, supported the Ordinance to cap housing size in order to maintain the
character and diversity of downtown.
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson, supported changes to existing regulations in order to protect
neighborhoods and stated none of the proposals will discourage diversity or economic development.
Chris Guilla, 1300 West Stuart, realtor, opposed changes to existing regulations.
Brian Dagostino, 2421 Ridgecrest Road, realtor, opposed changes to existing regulations.
Laura Olive, 231 South Grant, realtor, opposed changes to existing regulations.
Glen Konen, 121 Sherwood, opposed changes to existing regulations until more research has been
completed.
Josh Shaughnessy, Fort Collins resident, stated the proposed regulations would not discourage
diversity or economic investment in downtown and supported proposed changes.
Jill Kuch, 709 Stover Street, expressed concern that all the proposed options are too restrictive but
Option C is the least restrictive.
Brad Kuch, 709 Stover Street, opposed changes to current regulations but stated Option C is the least
restrictive of the proposals.
Roberto Torres, 522 West Magnolia, opposed changes in regulations citing over -complexity of the
proposed changes.
138
February 1, 2011
Mike Knowles, 623 Monte Vista Avenue, supported a reduced floor area ratio and regulations which
would maintain the overall character of the neighborhood.
0
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked for clarification regarding the impact of carriage
houses on each proposed option.
Michelle Hickey -Crawford, 1015 Sycamore, opposed the Ordinances and stated new construction
has helped revitalize the neighborhood.
Troy Hiebsch, 620 West Oak Street, opposed changes to current regulations.
Chase Eckert, (not speaking on behalf of ASCSU), encouraged Council to take more time with its
decision.
Jim Reidhead, 707 West Mountain, stated the proposed options are impractical and emphasized the
importance of design over size.
Bruce Brown, 425 North Whitcomb, emphasized the importance of design over size and opposed
the Ordinances.
Jim Wurz, 425 North Sherwood, stated new home construction has not revitalized the downtown
area and stated there is no other area in town where there are no design or size standards.
Cynthia Reffler, 124 Fishback Avenue, encouraged Council to take more time with its decision.
Debbie Healy, 4918 La Paz Drive, expressed concern regarding government intrusion on private
property rights.
Susan Krule Faucett architect, encouraged Council to consider the opinion of the Planning and
Zoning Board and opposed the Ordinances.
Jim Givens, 618 Endicott, opposed the Ordinances.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Executive Vice -President, encouraged staff to more
adequately participate in two-way communication and supported Option C.
Dee Amick, 221 Park Street, stated the City has an obligation to protect and preserve existing
housing in the downtown area.
Steve Mack, 420 East Laurel, stated existing neighborhood character should be maintained.
(**Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Manvel asked why design standards were not part of the proposal. Bolin replied
design guidelines were developed covering various aspects of character, however, a majority of
Council did not opt to place regulatory control over design aspects.
139
February 1, 2011
Councilmember Troxell asked how substantive changes between First and Second Reading can be.
City Attorney Roy replied the City Charter states that no ordinance shall be so altered on Second
Reading so as to change its original purpose.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the proposed options and whether they pertain to design
standards. Bolin replied in the negative.
Councilmember Manvel noted the option changes have resulted from citizen input.
Councilmember Troxell suggested the Ordinances should not be adopted as there is actually not a
problem. He asked how Option C has been vetted and what consequences may result from its
adoption. Bolin replied Options B and C apply the same formula, with the exception of the 200
square foot allowance for a detached garage.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the carriage house aspect would fit into Option C. Peter Barnes,
Zoning Supervisor, replied the provisions in the NCL and NCM zones that apply to carriage houses
are not affected by any of the options as they are considered a principal building.
Councilmember Troxell asked what criteria would be used to review proposed variances. Karen
McWilliams, Historic Preservation, replied the criteria used by the Landmark Preservation
Commission are set forth in the Land Use Code. A report summarizing the findings of the
Commission would be presented for each case.
Councilmember Troxell asked about projects currently under review. Bolin replied full plan
submittal would be required prior to April 1, 2011, at which time any new regulations would go into
effect.
Councilmember Roy asked that Option C of Ordinance No. 003, 2011, be read into the record. City
Attorney Roy complied.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
003, 2011, Option C, including revisions read into the record by City Attorney Roy, on Second
Reading.
Councilmember Manvel noted citizens have voiced negative opinions about various aspects of this
issue for many years. He discussed the scatter diagrams of downtown home additions and stated
changing the standards would have had almost no impact on renovation in Old Town in the last 10
years. Large homes should be built on larger lots as opposed to small lots.
Councilmember Troxell noted large homes exist all throughout Old Town and stated a problem does
not appear to exist.
Councilmember Manvel stated 4% of the homes in the area are 2500 square feet or larger, most of
Which are on Mountain Avenue and East Elizabeth.
140
February 1, 2011
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked that staff examine the architectural standpoint and bring that back to
Council for its consideration. Mapes replied Land Use Code maintenance will be completed in the
spring.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated property rights should not allow a property owner to not consider
impacts to neighbors. Core Area Neighborhoods have been a concept in Fort Collins since the
1980's. He stated this particular process has been ongoing for 13 months and he would support the
motion as it is positive progress.
Councilmember Roy stated Old Town is a valued part of Fort Collins that needs to be preserved.
Councilmember Troxell stated this item has not been an example of good governance as it has been
considerably changed since First Reading. Old Town should be preserved by letting its uniqueness
continue.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the citizens who spoke and thanked Councilmember Manvel for
his work on the item. This option is a reasonable compromise which will allow reasonable family
homes in Old Town.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson disagreed with Councilmember Troxell and stated an appeal process does
exist for individuals seeking variances.
Councilmember Troxell reiterated his stance that a problem does not exist.
Mayor Hutchinson stated a significant amount of support has been shown by citizens for some type
of regulation change. Option C will allow for diversity and flexibility and will not regulate design
standards.
City Attorney Roy read a section of the Ordinance which stated the effective start date will be April
1, 2011.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
002, 2011, on Second Reading.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this item will increase the possibility of success for a property owner
seeking a variance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
141
February 1, 2011
Ordinance No. 009, 2011,
Authorizing the Lease of City Property at
200 West Mountain Avenue, Suite C, to Our Global Village Museum of
Arts and Cultures For Up to Three Years. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 18, 2011, authorizes a lease to
Our Global Village Museum of Arts and Cultures for space located at 200 West Mountain Avenue,
Suite C. "
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the space in question may be better suited as
incubator space for a start-up business.
Councilmember Troxell asked about future plans for the property in general. Ken Marmon,
Operations Services Director, replied the intent is to rent the space until it can be redeveloped.
Councilmember Troxell asked about any type of out clause for the proposed lease. Helen Matson,
Real Estate Services Manager, replied most leases have an out clause allowing for termination with
a one-year notice.
Councilmember Troxell stated the space should be a dynamic space. City Manager Atteberry agreed
and stated he would provide a copy of the out clause for Councilmember Troxell.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No.
009, 2011, on Second Reading.
Mayor Hutchinson supported the proposed use of the building.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson supported the proposed use of the building and noted it could be an
incubator space for the Museum.
City Manager Atteberry supported the proposed use of the building.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell.. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
142
February 1, 2011
Resolution 2011-008
Authorizing and Directing Staff to Prepare an Existing Conditions
Survey and an Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown Area, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMiVL4RY
The Midtown Redevelopment Study, completed September 2010, included both a market and
economic feasibility analysis of the Midtown Commercial Corridor. The result of this Study was an
Action Plan with implementation strategies, priorities, and time frames to proceed with the
redevelopment envisioned. One of the main recommended actions is the completion of an Existing
Conditions Survey for the corridor. The survey would evaluate the statutory requirements for the
formation of additional Urban Renewal Plan Areas along the corridor. The City Council
established an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to provide assistance to redevelopmentprojects in
specified areas of the city and to be an economic development tool for otherwise distressed
locations. Staff is seeking Council 's authorization to proceed with the preparation of an Existing
Conditions Survey and draft an Urban Renewal Plan for Midtown.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Midtown, the South College Avenue commercial corridor running from Prospect Road to just south
ofHarmony Road, has been in decline as a prominent regional destination for retail uses. Increased
regional competition, aging and outmoded space and the impact of the national recession have
contributed to approximately 650, 000 square feet of vacant space.
In 2009, City Council recognized that the Midtown corridor deserved and required an immediate
assessment of its economic outlook and community aspirations for its future, and directed staff to
initiate the Midtown Redevelopment Study. This process occurred from late October 2009 to May
2010, during which the consultant team worked with the City, stakeholders and the public to assess
Midtown issues, and make recommendations for its future and outline next steps for action.
The recommended actions to help achieve the redevelopment envisioned by the Midtown
Redevelopment Study include additional design and planning efforts, financial feasibility analysis
and further refinement ofpublic financing options.
Action Al of the Implementation Strategy directs the City to "Implement other Midtown Corridor
Redevelopment Opportunities ... Prepare an existing conditions report for the Midtown Study area
(excluding Prospect South and Foothills Mall area previously addressed)." See Attachment 2 for
the entire language within Action A1.
-The Existing Conditions Survey will describe the conditions in accordance with the Colorado
statutory definition of "blight " that exist in the study area. Consideration should then be given to
the creation of an Urban Renewal Plan for the area to eliminate the conditions that constitute
"blight " and to further promote the goals and objectives of City Plan.
143
February 1, 2011
Urban Renewal Plan Areas have the following objectives that are consistent with City Plan:
PRINCIPLE GM-8
"The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in areas within the Growth
Management Area boundary. "
POLICY GM-8.1
"Redevelopment and infill development will be encouraged in targeted locations. The
purpose of these areas is to channel growth where it will be beneficial and can best improve
access to jobs, housing and services with fewer and shorter auto trips ... A major goal is to
increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and,
where necessary, provide stimulus to redevelop. These areas should be defined from City
Plan, Subarea Plans, Zoning and locational criteria such as:
• Underutilized land;
• Areas already undergoing positive change, which is expected to continue;
• Areas where infrastructure capacity exists;
• Areas where public investment is warranted from a policy perspective;
• Areas with special opportunities, such as where major public or private investment
is already planned;
• Transportation opportunities:
o along travel corridors
a along enhanced travel corridors "
POLICY GM-8 S
"The City will consider opportunities, and the costs and benefits for targeted public investment
in order to encourage redevelopment and infill development in appropriate locations. "
The following are the boundaries of the area staff will study (see Attachment 1) for the potential
designation as the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area:
North: The southern boundary of the Prospect South study area boundary;
East: The north -south alley that runs between South College Avenue and Remington Street,
approximately one to two parcels East of College Avenue. Excluding Foothills Mall, using
JFK Parkway to the east beyond the Mall;
South: One block south of Harmony Road; and
West: The BNSF railroad tracks, along with the proposed Mason Corridor BRT.
Staff will further define the boundary as the evaluation of the existing conditions survey proceeds
and a more in-depth assessment regarding the needs of the area is made.
In 1982, the Fort Collins City Council created an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and designated
itself as the governing board (known as the "Authority'). The boundaries of the URA are the City
144
February 1, 2011
limits. The Fort Collins URA was created to prevent and eliminate conditions in the community
related to certain "blight factors, " as defined in the State's Urban Renewal Laws. The URA has
broad powers to carry out its statutory mandate. Included are the powers to enter into contracts,
borrow funds, and acquire property voluntarily or by eminent domain, among others. Urban
renewal projects may be financed in a variety of ways. URAs are authorized to issue bonds and
accept grants from public or private sources. The principal method of financing urban renewal
projects is through obligations secured by property tax or sales tax increments from the project
area, or "tax increment financing" (TIF). The Authority exercises its powers by planning and
carrying out urban renewal plans in urban renewal areas.
The major purpose of establishing the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan would be to permit the
utilization oftax incrementfinancing in redevelopmentprojects. TIFis a tool that is commonly used
throughout Colorado for a variety of redevelopment and economic development purposes. TIF has
also proven to be an effective tool in the North College Urban Renewal Plan Area to overcome
significant public improvement costs and to make its retail projects more competitive in the region
and state. Given the lack of economic tools at the City's disposal and the proven effectiveness of
TIF, staff believes that utilizing TIF is the most effective toolto help keep the targeted redevelopment
areas competitive with other communities along the Front Range. The obvious advantage of using
TIF is that public assistance toward the development is' driven by enhancements to the assessed
valuation of the property and is funded through property tax revenues versus sales tax revenues.
Authorizing staff to proceed with conducting the Existing Conditions Survey and preparation of the
Midtown Urban Renewal Plan does not commit the Council to formally adopting the Survey and
Plan at this time. City Council may, however, eventually adopt resolution finding that blight exists
within all, or a portion of, the study area and determining that the rehabilitation and/or
redevelopment of the area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the
residents of Fort Collins, and may adopt another resolution officially establishing the Midtown
Urban Renewal Plan. The Plan will examine the feasibility and desirability of implementing an
urban renewal program and will make recommendations for correcting those conditions
contributing to "blight".
FINANCL4UECONOMIC IMPACTS
The fundingfor this survey was approved through the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process 2011-
2012. The economic impact will be further defined by the results of this survey.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No environmental impacts have been identified at this time. The survey will reveal any
environmental impacts in the future to address. "
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the North College URA should have regulations
and a business plan and expressed concern there is no oversight committee for TIF projects. He
stated TIF should be used with caution.
145
February 1, 2011
Jim Palmer, South Fort Collins Business Association, thanked Council for its recognition of the need
for mid -town revitalization. He encouraged Council to explore options including not only the
Foothills Fashion Mall.
Councilmember Roy asked about the impacts to TIF financing for other entities, such as Poudre
School District. He encouraged an accounting of what funds are not being received by those
entities. Christina Vincent, Urban Renewal Authority Program Manager, replied that information
could be required as part of the policies and procedures. Typically, a preliminary County impact
report is completed showing what impacts a TIF project would have.
City Manager Atteberry stated the County and School District are very sophisticated in
understanding impacts of URA and DDA projects. He supported Councilmember Roy's suggestion.
Mayor Hutchinson noted the proposed Resolution would only begin an existing conditions survey.
Councilmember Poppaw stated some of the comments may be premature.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the intersection of College and Harmony is not included within
the study area boundary. Vincent replied the boundary matches the one used in the mid -town
redevelopment study, but is flexible. City Manager Atteberry stated this study will likely affirm the
need to include that intersection.
Vincent stated the draft study will be brought before Council at a work session on April 26, 2011.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2011-008.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated Fort Collins uses TIF selectively and effectively. He asked for a
report on whether or not the state backfills URA increment monies as it does DDA increment
monies. Vincent replied former Finance Director Chuck Seest confirmed in 2009 that the state does
not backfill for the North College URA. She stated she would acquire more recent information.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested a one -page memo on the topic.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
146
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
February 1, 2011
147