HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/17/2012-RegularApril 17, 2012
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, April 17, 2012,
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: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy..
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the order of the agenda has been changed and Item #23
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012 Denial of Two
Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715
Remington Street will be considered after Items #24 and 25.
Citizen Participation
Karen Miller, 4407 Hummingbird Drive, suggested Hughes Stadium could be refurbished rather
than CSU constructing a new stadium.
Judy Rodriguez, 525 East Stuart, asked about the future plans for Hughes Stadium.
John Hurst, PO Box 999, discussed Resolution 2006-126 regarding Front Range Village and stated
the public should be informed of the PIF via placards at registers.
Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at CSU.
Chase Eckert, Associated Students of Colorado State University Governmental Affairs Director,
discussed the increase in Transfort ridership for CSU students.
Carl Patton, 619 Skysail Lane, opposed the proposed. on -campus stadium at CSU and suggested
Council read a statement compiled by the SOS Hughes group.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at CSU and
questioned the future of Hughes Stadium.
337
April 17, 2012
Sandy Lemburg, 6851 Poudre Canyon, opposed the proposed on -campus stadium at CSU and
suggested Council pass a non -binding resolution opposing the stadium.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, requested that Council question Dr. Frank about CSU's plans
for additional student housing and the way in which those plans may be affected by the proposed
stadium.
Thomas Sneider, 416 West Swallow, urged Council to ask Dr. Frank if he is willing to make a
commitment that private funding will pay for the impact of the stadium on City infrastructure.
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, stated a representative from IKON stated the City will not
be responsible for funding infrastructure improvements.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat stated Council has a meeting next Tuesday, April 24, with Dr. Frank, CSU
President. _ -- -
City Manager Atteberry stated staff will review the possibility of a placard requirement at Front
Range Village.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. Eckert for his service at ASCSU and recognized CSU students
for the positive impact they have on the community.
City Manager Atteberry expressed appreciation for Mr. Eckert and the ASCSU group.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and March 20, 2012, Regular
Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year's reserves for expenditures authorized in 2011 by Council but which could not be
completed by the end of 2011. This Ordinance was amended on First Reading to remove
the request of $145,500 for a Transportation Utility Analysis.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior
year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction
of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs
to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins.
338,
April 17, 2012
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027 2012 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
Ordinance No. 027, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012,
appropriates Non -Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing_ Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financier by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public
Finance at 2.15% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease -purchased is $1,579,444.
Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012
lease -purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget.- The effect of the debt position for
the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. A
competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes
acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030 2012 Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, updates titles and
terminology used in the City Code to correspond with current City organizational titles and
department names. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition,
certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term "boarding house," is no longer
consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are
updated in the Ordinance. -
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing_ Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property
In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel 11(south parcel) of the
Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I
(north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who
reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their
parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes an amendment to the easement to grant
permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to
make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right
for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this
opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement
capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE.
339
April 17, 2012
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
The North College Avenue Improvement Project — Vine to Conifer is a road improvement
project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on
the north. In 2010, Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorized the use of eminent domain
proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests
were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the
upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right-of-way area containing
approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a
planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open
to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility and the Project is partially funded by CDOT,
this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures_ used in the previous
acquisitions for the Project. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
April 3, 2012.
14. Resolution 2012-023 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 812 North Shields
for Up to Two Years.
In 2000, the City purchased the property located at 812 North Shields as part of the
Operations Services Master Plan. Leasing of the property has been continual from the time
of purchase. Staff recommends that the City continue to lease this site.
15. Resolution 2012-024 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental A-zreement
Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of
Traffic Signals Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
The City has a long-standing contract with the -Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices within the City's Growth Management Area.
This update increases the amount that CDOT pays the City for maintenance of signs and
pavement markings to more accurately reflect actual costs incurred by the City. Under this
new contract, the amount paid to the City by CDOT will increase from $193,440 to
$217,568 annually. The contract is for 5 years.
16. Resolution 2012-025 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16,
2012, Planning and Zoning Board - Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning
the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street.
On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standards was filed by
Charles A. Bailey with Catamount Properties, Ltd.
On April 3, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
340
April 17, 2012
17. Resolution 2012-026 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board
of Commissioners.
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw's term on the Fort Collins Housing Authority expires on May
1, 2012. Councilmember Poppaw has expressed a desire to be reappointed. This Resolution
will reappoint Councilmember Poppaw to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners until May 1, 2017.
18. Resolution 2012-027 Making an to the Parks and Recreation Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of
Selena Paulsen. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz
reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Todd Galbate to fill
the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Hams.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2012 Adopted City Budget.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreernerif for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of -Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City
Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate
Outdated References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation
Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to
Conifer.
26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the
Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029.
341
April 17, 2012
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to
Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow
for On -Bill Utility Financing.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 034, 2012,
Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical
Assistance. Program for Electric Customers, Option C Adopted on -First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUM11L4RY
The Medical Assistance Program is apilotprogram which is aimed atprovidingfinancial assistance
for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical
equipment in their home. Staff is presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort
Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details and approval from the City Council to
implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine the scope of the
program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program.
The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those
with life support equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air
conditioning needed to improve the quality of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses
are also being presented for consideration.
• Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment.
The maximum discount is $12.50 per month.
Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum
discount is $12.50 per month.
Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a
discount for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum
discount during non -summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during
summer months is $41.73 per month.
The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold face type.
342
April 17, 2012
Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation
as a pilotprogram to be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become
effective. Based on 2012 participation and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the
program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season for any necessary changes.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On December 6, 2011, Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the Residential Class
Electric Rates. The new rates support the conservation values of the City through a tiered rate.
structure and include a seasonal variation to reflect the higher cost of energy during the summer.
In the discussion leading up to the vote to adopt the Ordinance, Council requested Fort Collins
Utilities to develop a program so as not to impose any additional economic hardship on those
customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage attributed to medical equipment to be
pushed into the second or third tiers. The Pilot Medical Assistance Program is the result of that
request.
The -program could include an income limitation to focus the program on those most in need of
economic assistance. It could also include a component with an air conditioning allowance during
the cooling season (June — August) for those with medical conditions adversely affected by hotter
summer temperatures.
Research indicated there are a number of discount programs for customers with medical issues
around the country. Comparisons of the programs in the western region of the United States served
as a basis for the development of this program. Please see Attachment 2 for a table comparing the
programs at other utilities. In addition, outreach for this program has involved review by the
Energy Board and meetings with patient advocacy groups and physicians.
In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the
Federal Housing Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the
number of people in a household. The AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and
factors in" local costs of living. 'Without more detailed information than the median income, it was
necessary to take some portion of this AMI as.the program is designed to help those customers who
will seethe tiered rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in
the draft application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. This level of
income is close to 185% of the federal poverty level and is higher than that used for many other
income -based social assistance programs.
A certain level offraud prevention is recommended for this program. The application requires the
customer to sign an affidavit allowing for Fort Collins Utilities to request documentation to verify
income qualifications, if the pilot program has an income ceiling. The application also requires a
signed affidavit from a physician verifying the need for durable medical equipment which requires
electricity or the need for a temperature controlled household for those customers with certain
immune compromising diagnoses. The lawful presence affidavit is required by Colorado state law
because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit.
An appeal process will be included in the program for those customers who are experiencing a
financial hardship due to their medical needs or whose medical condition requires air conditioning,
yet fall outside the scope of the program. The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority
343
April 17, 2012
to consult a medical professional as'a hearing officer for medical appeals of a decision that any
electrical medical equipment does not meet established criteria. The Utilities Executive Director
will have the authority to allow an exception to the established financial criteria.
Staff is providing Council with three. options for the program. Attachment 1—Program Options
summarizes the options, including the pros and cons and the associated costs of each option. Based
on City Council 's direction and adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading, staff will return with
the specific program for Council to, consider adopting on Second Reading on May 1. If adopted,
staff anticipates implementation of the program before June 2012.
FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is difficult to estimate the anticipated enrollment in this program and the enrollment depends on
what is included in the adopted program. This is because the program may potentially be more
comprehensive than other programs reviewed by staff. In addition, data on the prevalence of
certain diseases in Fort Collins is not available. For these reasons it is recommended that we
consider this program to be a pilot program from June 2012 through May 2013. Once the program
has been implemented, enrollment and costs will be better understood so any changes necessary to
continue the program or better meet these customers' needs can be brought back to City Council
by the second quarter of 2013. The revenue shortfall in 2012 associated with this program will be
accommodated within the Light & Power Reserves for 2012 and 2013.
While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing
electric rates for customers at this time and is providing a reduction' for the eligible customers.
Thus, it is not expected that this program will have any substantial economic impact on the
community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers participating in the program.
It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within the local
community.
—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. -
This program has minimal negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the
new tiered rate structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy
usage and may be an opportunity in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs. "
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, stated this item was postponed from
March 6 to allow for additional community outreach. Since the initial discussion before Council,
staff has spoken with citizens, physicians, and patient advocacy groups, and has presented the item
to the Energy Board and Senior Advisory Board. He discussed the three options available for
Council consideration and stated staff is recommending this program proceed as a pilot program to
be reviewed in one year.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported Option C with an
income limitation.
Dolores Kueffler, Fort Collins Program Manager for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
supported Option C.
ME
April 17, 2012
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the wording of the options.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council received a revised Ordinance which includes two provisions that
define the terms electrical durable medical equipment and healthcare common procedure coding
system.
Councilmember Manvel asked why the discounts are being given at the bottom rather than at the
top tier. Smith replied the recommended program gives all customers the same incentive to
conserve.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the cost estimates for implementing the pilot program. Patty
Bigner, Utilities Customer Relations Manager, replied this program will be absorbed into the
existing customer service function and it is not anticipated that the program will require additional
staffing or cost.
Councilmember Manvel suggested deleting or changing the wording regarding tiered rates on the
program application form. City Attorney Roy suggested referencing the general rate increase as the
justification for the program rather than the"tiered rate structure.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Option C
of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, as amended by removing the reference to the tiered rates in the second
Whereas clause, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated he does not support the tiered rate structure and can therefore not
support the item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 033, 2012,
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for
On -Bill Utility Financing, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide
financing and on -bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy
projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on -bill
financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate
Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of
the on -bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These
upgrades reduce our need forfuture energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote
local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and
safety of our homes.
345
April 17, 2012
Council approved a budget exception in fall 201 ] for the 2012 budget to provide $300, 000 for on -
bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of
the pilot program. Funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for
Outcomes process.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Policy Alignment
The proposed pilot On -Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort
Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The Program will
be a valuable addition to Utilities' efficiency and renewable energy programs which foster
sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built
environment and improved home comfort, health and safety.
Specific Council Policy references:
Development of On -Bill Financing is a -near -term priority action item (#35) within Plan Fort - -
Collins.
EnergyPolicy objectives which align with On -bill Financing include:
o Promote sustainable practices in homes and businesses by supporting increased
efficiency in existing buildings.
o Strive to invest climate improvement monies locally in programs that have long-term
positive impacts.
History
Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) since the early 1980s.
The Program was very successful for many years. However, in recent years. the Program saw
relatively little activity. The recent national mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the requirements
for local government entities to be able to originate loans for home improvements'. -As a result, the
Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The Program restarted in fall 2011
under a model where the loans are unsecured. The On -Bill Financing Program will supersede the
energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air quality related
aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental Services
Department, will be continued under a revised administrative model that is currently being
developed.
Home Efficiency Program Description
Utilities began offering the Home Efficiency Program to customers in 2010, with a goal ofproviding
a comprehensive and bestpractices approach to improving the performance of existing homes. The
Home Efficiency Program elements guide homeowners with:
Low-cost audits which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of
"what to do "
Participating contractor lists which address the barrier of "who to call "
Rebates which partially address the 'first cost" barrier
346
April 17, 2012
Installation standards and verification which address the barrier of "is it done right"
Since January 2010, the Home Efficiency Program has:
• Completed over 1,100 audits
• Supported efficiency improvement projects in over 375 homes
Trained over 100 individuals from 40 contracting companies
• Received ratings from customers of over 95% "extremely satisfied" with the audit,
contractor and rebate aspects of the Program
The On -Bill Financing Program will be integrated into the Home Efficiency Program and provide
the financing mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit using the
established contractors and installation standards of the Home Efficiency Program.
Pilot Program Summary
The objective of the On -Bill Financing Program element is to increase the number of residential
efficiency and renewable energy projects by addressing the up front cost barrier via on -bill
,financing. Key aspects of the Program include:
Simple application and approval processes
Financing 100% ofproject costs
Repayment of loans on the utility bill
Specific elements of the Program include:
• Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental
properties with the owner as applicant.
• Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy
efficiency (e.g., insulation, furnace; AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repairand
renewable energy (e.g., solar PV and wind) -
• Direct Program zrpenses will be recovered via fees and interest rates
• On -Bill Financing will replace the existing Zero Interest Loan Program.
The proposed Program is based on selecting best practices from on -bill programs in Kansas,
Kentucky, South Carolina and Oregon and loan parameters from a successful Fannie Mae and
Pennsylvania energy improvement loan program. Together with the proven components of Fort
Collins Home Efficiency Program, an On -Bill Financing Program element will further support
customers who choose to improve the efficiency of their homes. .
347
April 17, 2012
Pilot Program Details
Description
Details
Customer
Energy projects — Utilities electric customer
eligibility
Water projects — Utilities water customer
Project
Home Efficiency Program
eligibility
23 types ofprojects based on rebate categories
http: //www.fcQov. com/utilities/residential/conserve/ener-U-
e ciencv/home-e ciencv program/rebates
Renewable energy rebate requirements
• httv://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-
rebates
Water supply line replacement/repair (similar to Zero Interest Loan Program)
Not carried over from Zero Interest Loan Program
• Air quality projects, high efficiency clothes washers
Rental
Owner is applicant and note holder -"
properties
Owner options for payment mechanism: _=
• Owner receives separate loan payment bill from Utilities, or
• Tenants may make payments depending on lease type and if utility
account is in tenant's name (requires notification and acknowledgement
by tenant
Applicant
Varies with loan amount and credit score (2 tiers)
qualification
• Utility bill payment history
• Credit score
• Income
Loan details
Amount: $1,000 to $15,000
Term: 3 to 10 years
Interest: prime plus2-5%
Application fee ($25)
Ori ination ee ($150
Risk
Chapter 26 utility service —permanent lien and disconnect provisions
mitigation
Recorded lien (provides notification for title search)
and security
Loan qualification track record
Payments
Payments on utility bill.
and Pavoff
Pavoff on loan completion or propertv sale
Pilot Program Administration
The pilot program will be administered collaboratively by Utilities staff and a third party (to be
selected). Due to the state and federal requirements related to mortgage origination, Utilities will
seek a third party to complete several of the steps in the loan process. The table below represents
a simple overview ofsteps and likely split of responsibilities between Utilities and the third party.
348
April 17, 2012
Loan Process
Responsible Party
Utilities
3rd Parry
Efficiency Audit required
X
Application: project approval based on preliminary rebate
application and contractor estimate
X
X
Application: Bill payment history, credit score, income
X
X
Project verification
X
Loan origination
X
Contractor payment
X
Set up loan within billing system
X
Recording of obligation
X
Loan payment servicing
X
Pilot Program: Next Steps
Utilities has several tasks that need to be completed prior to being able to offer the pilot On -Bill
Financing Program to customers. The goal is to be ready to offer this service to customers by June
1. These steps include:
• Finalize testing of billing system
• DocumentTinalize internal business processes and 3rd party resources
• Document accounting procedures
• Integrate financing options with existing Home Efficiency Program outreach and marketing
plans
On -bill financing has great potential to increase efficiency and renewable energy projects in the
community. It is the intent of this 2012 pilot program to prove the concept in Fort Collins with a
limited scope ofbuilding, project types and available funds. Future expansion of the Program could
include the small commercial sector and additional projects types (e.g., expanded water
conservation measures, both indoor and outdoor).
The structure of the pilot, especially the loan parameters, is based on successful programs with
extended track records. This structure was chosen because it is scalable, both in administrative and
financial terms. The long-term vision is to attract capital to the loan fund so that the funding is not
limited to what Fort Collins Utilities can provide, either through reserves or ratepayer funds.
FINANCIAUECONOMIC IMPACTS
Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300, 000 for on -bill financing, subject
to bringing the necessary changes in City Code and additional details of the pilot program, which
are presented here. This funding for the 2012 pilot is coming from Utilities reserves. Utilities
expects to also have available approximately $30, 000 in remaining Zero Interest Loan funds from
the 2012 adopted budget which can be utilized by the pilot program. Based on 2011 efficiency
project rebate requests, it is expected that this level of funding will support 50 to 75 efficiency
projects.
349
April 17, 2012
The On -Bill Financing Program element will add to the positive economic impact of the Home
Efficiency Program. There are currently 40 participating contractors working with the Program,
with over 100 individuals going through training for best practices installation standards. Retrofit
projects in 2011 represented an investment (by homeowners, supported by rebates) ofapproximately
$1.2 million towards improving existing home efficiency. Utility bill savings from improved homes
also results in additional spending on local goods and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The On -Bill Financing Program supports the City's goals for energy use reduction through
efficiency, carbon emissions reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and
increasing local renewable energy production. Homes are seeing 5-50% (15% on average) energy
reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home Efficiency Program. The
opportunityfor on -going participation in the Program is many thousands of homes. The On -Bill
Financing Program is expected to be a very effective approach to reaching these homes in the
coming years.
The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit,
installation standards and project verification testing 'specifically address combustion safety of
natural gas appliances and educate homeowners on other aspects of indoor air quality. "
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, commended John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services
Manager, and Jessica Ping -Small, Sales Tax Manager, for their work on the proposed program. He
noted the detailed implementation work will occur following Council adoption.
John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services Manager, stated Council previously appropriated $300,000
for an on -bill utility financing program, subject to staff returning with a proposed structure and
details. Tonight's item will set the parameters of the proposed pilot program and make revisions
to Chapter 26 of the City Code to establish financing and the servicing of loans as a utility service.
Phelan detailed the specifics of the proposed program and noted the program will not be subsidized.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested loans, not giveaways, should be subsidized.
Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson, stated the Energy Board supported this program.
Fred Kirsch, Fort Collins resident, Community for Sustainable Energy member, thanked staff for
its work on the item and stated this will be an example for other programs throughout the state.
Mayor Weitkunat requested that staff address the loan cap written into the document. Beckstead
replied the loan cap is within the range of home equity loans and car loans. The range of 3% to 6%
interest will not deter customers from using the program.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the rate range. Beckstead replied the range was set for
flexibility.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the application and origination fees. Beckstead replied they
will be used on a trial basis during the pilot program and can be revisited at its conclusion. Phelan
350
April 17, 2012
replied the application fee is a one-time payment and the origination fee can be included in the loan
financing.
Councilmember Troxell asked about cost estimates for the pilot year. Phelan replied the S300,000
in capital funding is expected to fund approximately 50 to 75 of the typical home efficiency
improvement projects. Beckstead noted staff s commitment is to complete this pilot program, and
potentially beyond, without adding any incremental resources to the program.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the objectives and goals of the pilot program. Phelan replied
staff would like to see a substantial increase in the number of projects.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council has received a revised version of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell,.to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2012, as revised, on First Reading.
Councilmembers Manvel and Troxell thanked Mr. Kirsch and other citizens for keeping this issue
at the forefront.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's February 16, 2012
Denial of Two Stand -Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex
located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff s memorandum for, this item.
1QEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to
the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice
of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources,
General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of
structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the
preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places
and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially
designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that
is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is
designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within
an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop
the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three
existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register
351
April 17, 2012
Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation, and constructing one multi family building with 42 units in their place.
On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification
of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E).
After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all
five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of
Appeal with the City Clerk's Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board
for two of these Modifications of Standard requests.
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because
it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly
interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone
Modifications of Standards requests in question.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on
three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the
boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the
District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fiftyyears
old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as
intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was
found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing
element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National
Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With
the exception of the two "intrusion " properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of
Remington Streetare designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two ofthese
other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort
Collins Landmarks. - - -
The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty
years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14,
Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the "Demolition/Alteration Review Process. "
In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was
not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711
Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711
Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation.
Constructed in 1888, theButton House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make
it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel
School neighborhood contest.
As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January
11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of
the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the
Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to
352
April 17, 2012
an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not
identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC
Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans
for the redevelopment of the property.
For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with
all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard
pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code's applicability
to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for
applicability. The Code states:
"If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation..., [or] (2) is officially
designated as a ... state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then
to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall
provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The
development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic' property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively
used on the development site;. or (b) is located on property. adjacent to the
development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of
any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. "
As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to
the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State
Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by
providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with
the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to
comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.
Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two "stand-alone " modification requests.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of
Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject
of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions:
1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code '
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code
based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff,
and voted to deny the requests for modifications ofstandards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code (5-1).
353
April 17, 2012
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk's Office. The
Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two
stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use
Code.
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered
Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading.
The Appellant states, "The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of
eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be
blatantly incorrect... "
The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was
substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at
711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not
meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the
February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, "...references to certain City
policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car
subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands ofpossible project designs that preserve the
allegedly eligible property... "; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the
Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for
the 711 Remington structure.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711
Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications ofstandards requests,
as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of
eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing
Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register
of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was
determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and
during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion
to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was
made in the Board's discussion of the first of the f ve modification ofstandard requests, that
to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in
354
April 17, 2012
reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that'it would encourage creativity,
including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15)
In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider references to "...potentially thousands of possible project
designs that preserve the ... property...... The only reference to the number of potential
alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter
states, "I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we
were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no
feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and
to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven't
been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated. "
In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and
Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants ' attorney,
Mr. Johnson did readout loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the
Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information
or consider it in making its motion.
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the
Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4. 7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states, "A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not
detrimental to the public good" and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code
zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that
modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would. be detrimental to the public good. The
question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711
Remington Street and maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State
Register Historic. District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at
this location.
The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good
because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board)
grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code.. These
Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows:
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard
If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the
State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local
or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is
located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum
355
April 17, 2012
extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the
preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and
building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development
site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies
under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent
thereto.
Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition
A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion ofthe decision
maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the
site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the
preservation of the site, structure -or object is not feasible.
In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E),
the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or
more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with.
LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that:
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially
alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city=wide concern or would
result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution ofthe City Council, and the strict application ofsuch
a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
Some ofthe City Plan policies listed on page 3 ofthe Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed
project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, "Relationship to City
Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant
asserts. "
Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, "the granting of two modifications, one to Section
3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the
proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifzcally'and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18).
The Planning and Zoning Boards' discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan
policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand
356
April 17, 2012
alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific
findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal.
C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Boardfailedtoproperly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not
detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of
exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard
The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a
determination ofindividual eligibilityfor local landmark designation on February 16, 2012.
Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the
determination ofeligibilityfor local landmark designation will be made in accordance with
the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility
for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in
that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially
alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially
addresses and benefits important community needs.
The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing
denying the two stand alone modification ofstandard requests did not contain any language
referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any
statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
SUMMARY
The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as
well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to
be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures
contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel
School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually
eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development
plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As
proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a
modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on
February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings
outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request
for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their
determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. "
Assistant City Attorney Daggett reviewed the appeal procedure and noted this appeal will be heard
under the procedure in place prior to the recent appeal procedure changes. She stated Council can
opt to uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board's original denials, or remand all
or part of the decisions back to the Board for rehearing or further consideration of specific matters.
USIFA
April 17, 2012
Courtney Levingston, City Planner, discussed the Remington Annex project and the requested
modifications of standard. She stated the property at 711 Remington Street, one of the three homes
proposed to be demolished as part of this project, was determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed the City's demolition/alteration review
process. She stated this block of Remington Street contains ten other historically designated
properties in addition to 711 Remington Street. She stated the appellant asserts the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence substantially false and
grossly misleading and also asserts that the building at 711 Remington is not eligible for local
landmark designation. McWilliams noted the Board did not consider the eligibility of the building
at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modification requests as that it is not
within the Board's purview.
Levingston stated the appellant also asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when it denied the two modification ..
requests. The appellant maintains the two modification requests are not detrimental to the public =-
good and the project would advance the public good because it substantially addresses adopted plans
and policies. Levingston stated Council must consider whether or not the Planning and Zoning
Board failed to hold a fair hearing and whether or not the Board failed to property interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
Mayor Weitkunat noted several Councilmembers visited the site with staff on April 12.
Councilmember Horak stated at the site visit he asked why the property would be eligible for local
landmark designation, and was given a brief answer by staff.
Appellant Presentation
Jeff Johnson, attorney for the appellants, stated -the relocation of the structure at 711-.Remington -
Street is the crux of the appeal. He stated the appellant would like Council to grant the modification
to allow the relocation of the structure with the condition that the site to which the building will be
relocated is suitable to the City. Relocation of the structure will allow for investment in the block
face to allow for an appropriate transition between the commercial zone district and the NCM zone,
and will substantially address needs outlined in City plans and policies. If the relocation is granted,
the project is not approved, and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 will still apply.
Robin Bachelet, Appellant, discussed the student housing projects she and her husband have built
near CSU and requested Council support relocation of the structure at 711 Remington Street. Ms.
Bachelet stated the conceptual review of the project resulted in a comment from Karen McWilliams
noting the properties at 705 and 715 Remington are not eligible, and the property at 711 Remington
is probably not eligible. She stated the conceptual review comments did not indicate these
properties are located in the Laurel Historic District or are part of a national historic district. Ms.
Bachelet described the conflicting comments received from staff regarding eligibility and whether
or not the Landmark Preservation Commission would be involved. Ms. Bachelet read portions of
a letter from Dr. Koziol, an historic preservation expert, opposing the eligibility of the structure at
711 Remington.
358
April 17, 2012
Ms. Bachelet stated there are twelve intrusion properties surrounding her property on Remington, and only IS of the 100 dwellings studied on Remington Street are owner -occupied.
Opponent Presentation
Rick Zier, attorney representing parties -in -interest in opposition to the appeal, discussed the
neighborhood and surrounding historical properties. He outlined the opposition arguments
supporting the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to deny the modifications of standard, stating
the two modifications would be detrimental to the public good as they would weaken the sense of
identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall
neighborhood context. Mr. Zier stated a structure's location makes it historic and relocating it
would change the authenticity of the Historic District.
Marcy Riser, 622 Remington Street, stated relocation would destroy the integrity of the property and
negatively impact the Historic District. She requested Council uphold the denials of the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Appellant. Rebuttal
Christian Bachelet, Appellant, stated the properties have been neglected for years and noted they
had plans that included the structure which were not feasible projects. Mr. Bachelet expressed
concern there is no avenue available to refute eligibility and noted there was no disclosure citing
eligibility when they purchased their property.
Mr. Johnson stated the property lacks exterior integrity and significance. The proposed project
encourages the Land Use Code by renewal and innovation, encourages patterns of land use
development through infill, encourages appropriate development within transit corridors, and fosters
a more rational relationship between the commercial properties and the historic district. Mr.
Johnson noted three of the Landmark Preservation Commission members supported relocation of
the structure. He stated the applicant has -created six different building plans and has appeared
before the Landmark Preservation Commission twice to attempt to find a solution to the issue.
Opponent Rebuttal
Mr. Zier stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not rely on false or grossly misleading evidence
and did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code and requested the Board's decision be
upheld.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Troxell asked about the alleged changing determinations made by Ms. McWilliams.
McWilliams replied the comments attributed to her from the Conceptual Review were summary
comments and were corrected at the time the comments were provided to the applicant, six months
prior to the purchase of the property. McWilliams read the summary and corrected comments.
Councilmember Troxell requested input regarding the ability to refute a determination of eligibility.
McWilliams replied the appellants can refute the eligibility determination by providing substantive
new information and requesting a new determination or, by working through the process and
359
April 17, 2012
continuing to the Landmark Preservation Commission final hearing; at which time, any decision of
the Commission is directly appealable to Council.
r
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Planning and
Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Troxell stated the applicant is using the mechanism at its disposal and he is unsure
as to why the applicant cannot get a fair hearing of the issue.
Councilmember Horak agreed there are some issues regarding eligibility which need to be addressed
within the City organization; however, this hearing is not the appropriate time to deal with that issue.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern the current processes regarding eligibility are detrimental
to the City.
Councilmember Manvel stated the process has been followed and the Board conducted a fair and
complete hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7(B). Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the proposed modification of standards for Larid-Use
Code Section 3.4.7(E).
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council was limited by the appeal process in terms of what issues can be
addressed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the schedule to address these process
issues moving forward. Deputy City Manager Jones replied a memo will be delivered to Council
within a week outlining the problem statements, scope of work, public involvement, and schedule
for meeting dates.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson agreed that the historic preservation process needs clarification and stated
historic preservation within the community has been too relaxed.
360
April 17, 2012
Councilmember Troxell agreed and stated efforts should be sharpened with respect to what
properties should be preserved. McWilliams replied a recent assessment resulted in suggestions for
achieving more predictability in the historic preservation process.
Ordinance No. 028, 2012,
Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use
Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six
Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029, Adopted on Second Reading,
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved
by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement
between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the
Building 6 Anner Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an
annual average wage of$90,000. The City's assistance included both a onetime use tax rebate and
a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance,
adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw withdrew) appropriates $241,193
in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600, 000. "
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, due to a conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 028, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
Adjournment
361
GtJ
yor