HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/04/2012 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NDATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 8 and November 13, 2012 Adjourned Meetings and the
November 20, 2012 Regular Meeting.
November 8, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Thursday, November
8, 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
Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Eckman.
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s July 19, 2012 Decision
to Approve Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-family
Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and Project
Development Plan, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Overturned
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use
for Multi-Family Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project
Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel located on the east side of the Christ Center Community
Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. As
proposed, the project consists of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse.
On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an
application for an Addition of a Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview PDP.
After receiving testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board
voted 4 – 2 to approve the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings,
and then voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan.
On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board (1) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code
and (2) failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The project consists of two components because a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use must
be accompanied by either an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan.
161
November 8, 2012
As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus
a clubhouse on 11 acres. There would be a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units for a total of
275 bedrooms. There would be 292 parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached
garages and surface parking, and 283 bike spaces. Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and
walkways. There are no four bedroom units. Leases would be by the unit, not the bedroom. The
dwelling units are intended to be leased at the market rate and do not include any public subsidy
for affordable housing purposes. The applicant has indicated that there is no specific targeting of
any one particular demographic group.
The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and
improved as a two-acre, private pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either
Lemay Avenue or Drake Road. The parcel is presently used as an athletic field as part of the 25-
acre Christ Center Community Church campus.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
The Board took two actions:
• Voted 4 – 2 to allow Multi-Family Dwellings in the R-L zone on the subject parcel only and
as specifically depicted on the Regency Lakeview PDP.
• Voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview PDP.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code?
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded
its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter?
3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure?
4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly
misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(1).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as follows:
“Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.”
162
November 8, 2012
The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview PDP, are
not appropriate within the R-L zone district because the R-L zone is for low density housing, not
multi-family housing.
The Planning and Zoning Board not only considered the underlying zoning but also evaluated the
context of the individual parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. Given the site’s
location within this existing urban context, the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings, at this particular
location, was considered appropriate.
As noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 23), Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I
think at that time, I supported, actually, the rezoning. I thought the higher density
housing was appropriate in this area because of the two arterials, the City’s
commitment to the infill. “
Also as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 35 – 39), Boardmember Smith commented:
“So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you’ve still got to fit the zone
district. Is this… is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be
acceptable and appropriate to go through the Addition of a Permitted Use process?
And, so, looking at it line by line, it does seem that it does fit all the criteria that’s
laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use.”
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(2).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as follows:
“Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other
permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.”
The appellants state that adding Multi-Family Dwellings to the R-L zone does not conform to the
basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses.
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this standard. As noted in the transcript (page 61, lines
40 – 42 and page 62, lines 1 – 2) Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I just wanted to say quickly, too, I think I had a concern, too, whether the addition
of a permitted use was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because
we’re keeping it residential, which goes with the character of the neighborhood.
You’ve got a project that has garages, so I think when people, you know, have cars,
these are going to be the kinds of tenants who are going to want to stay and become
a part of the neighborhood.”
Also as noted in the transcript (page 62, lines 10 – 14), Boardmember Smith commented:
“…by and large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed-use,
every one of them essentially. And so, when I got into the purpose statement of the
163
November 8, 2012
RL, which, again, it is one sentence. And it talks about predominant single-family
residential areas, located throughout the city which were existing at the time of
adoption of the Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold-over in order to be able to
accommodate some large swaths of land that were going through the process.”
C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(3).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as follows:
“Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic
generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public
or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which
it is added.”
The appellants state that the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings as indicated by the Regency
Lakeview PDP would create more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from the
other permitted uses in the R-L zone.
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript
(page 61, lines 7 – 23), Boardmember Smith commented:
“And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use
are, I went through each one. I’ve looked at each one of them. Clearly, it’s not a
medical marijuana dispensary, or cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a
permitted use. Went through each one of them, and I think what it boiled down to
me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects, how a
property performs as it’s proposed, to whether it’s going to, you know…relative to
what would be otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and
permitted by the Code. Does it create more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences, and there’s a litany of these,
and I think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all are.
And, then I think about…as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the way
that this is set up is that you actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the
project as proposed, relative to something that were to be just explicitly allowed by
the Code, and whether or not it would be excessive as it performs in the
neighborhood beyond what is… a project that would just, by right, approved. I
could not come up…I could not be convinced that this project would be creating any
more adverse effects than, say, if the church were to go and fully develop out a
campus, for instance, that had a lot of different uses, including a school.”
In summary, the Board found that the request for Multi-Family Dwellings, as proposed on the
subject parcel and the accompanying PDP, complies with the applicable criteria related to adverse
impacts. The Board found that the project would not create any more offensive or adverse impacts
164
November 8, 2012
or any other objectionable influences than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted
uses listed in the R-L zone.
D. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good.”
The appellants assert that by using the Addition of a Permitted Use process is improper because it
is in effect a rezoning.
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript
(page 60, lines 7 – 9), Boardmember Carpenter commented:
“I guess when I look at this, I…on the question of whether this is detrimental to the
public good, I just cannot see that it is. It’s city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we
wanted to do with City Plan, so I really can’t see that it is detrimental to the public
good.”
Also as noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 28), Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I
think at that time, I supported actually, the rezoning. The members of the Board, I’ll
speak for some of them that aren’t here anymore, I think had a concern that if you
just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for the neighborhood, and you could
get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our direction to the church
at the time was, we’d like to see a specific project and then the neighbors could
weigh in and see how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that
direction and tried to move forward with something to actually present and use the
Addition of a Permitted Use process to do that.”
E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as follows:
“Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to
which it is added.”
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically
finds that such use would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3.5.1.”
165
November 8, 2012
Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code addresses issues related to project compatibility with the
surrounding area. It is considered in conjunction with the definition of compatibility which is as
follows:
“Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design
which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some
elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures.
Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and
parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are
landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean
"the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development
proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.”
The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings are not compatible with the existing single family
detached homes by virtue of the fact that the two uses are incongruent. Further, the assertion is
made that Section 3.5.1 only addresses physical and operational characteristics of buildings and
cannot be used in a compatibility analysis.
The Board evaluated these two criteria. As noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 2 – 5),
Boardmember Schmidt stated:
“So I can see that in all the design work that they’ve put into this project, they’ve
tried to make it as compatible as possible to the neighborhood, and have the least
impact on the surrounding neighbors, and I really appreciate that.”
Also as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 20 – 22), Boardmember Campana commented:
“And, frankly, I think that the design is very good. I think you’ve done…as I put on
my designer hat, I think you’ve done about everything you can to transition, buffer,
mitigate an existing neighborhood.”
In summary, the Board evaluated the proposed use not in isolation but in conjunction with the
various characteristics as found in the aforementioned definition. Considerable testimony was
provided to the Board regarding how the project would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. For example, the project is designed with a specific objective to buffer the existing
neighborhood to the east with landscaping, building setbacks, one-story garages, architectural
detail and varying building heights. To the south, buffering is achieved by virtue of open space
gained by the stormwater detention pond, approximately two acres in size, which would be upgraded
to a pocket park. Finally, the traffic impact on surrounding streets was evaluated and determined
to comply with the adopted level of service standards.
F. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Considering Evidence Relevant To Its
Findings Which Was Substantially False Or Grossly Misleading – Section 3.6.4.
Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows:
“All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service
166
November 8, 2012
standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal
Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor
vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of
the Multi-modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this
Section.”
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants assert that the pedestrian
level of service cannot be achieved because there are no medians in either arterial street which
would act as pedestrian refuge islands. Further, the assertion continues that, as stated by the
applicant’s traffic engineering consultant, since the existing sidewalks along both arterials would
not be deconstructed and then reconstructed to feature detached sidewalks separated by parkways,
the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. It is asserted that new medians and sidewalks
can indeed be installed as there appears to be sufficient land area in which to retrofit these
improvements.
In addition, the allegation is that traffic information provided to the board did not properly assess
the potential traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot in order to gain access to Lemay
Avenue. Evidence was presented to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant that
the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping center) would be used more frequently
than the southern access (which aligns with Strachan Drive) and yet there is no basis for this
assumption. Traffic using the using the southern access will impact the neighbors to the south.
Finally, the allegation is that the traffic delay analysis of traffic leaving the church or neighborhood
onto Lemay Avenue was not properly considered.
With regard to the pedestrian level of service, the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant
addressed the Board. This testimony is on page 48, lines 1 - 11 of the transcript.
In addition, on page 54, lines 35 – 38 of the transcript, there was this exchange:
“Boardmember Kirkpatrick: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put
medians on Lemay are there?”
“Mr. Stanford (City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer): None that I am aware of. I
think it would be difficult just to find the room to do it with the current build-out
characteristic.”
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following
testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript
page 48, lines 1 – 5):
“In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of
service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would
be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and
sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County
Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet them.”
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.
167
November 8, 2012
With regard to traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot, the fundamental design
objective is to minimize traffic from the apartments from traveling along the length of the southern
property line which is separated from the back yards of the existing houses by a six foot high solid
privacy fence. Residents along this shared property line indicated at the neighborhood meetings
a preference for this traffic to be directed away from their back yards. In response, the site plan was
revised such that Regency Lakeview traffic heading west to Lemay Avenue would be directed as far
to the north as possible in order to prioritize the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines
shopping center).
Consequently westbound drivers will traverse the parking lot at the north edge of the parking lot
away from the houses. While it may be possible for these drivers to decide to exit at the southern
driveway (which aligns with Strachan Drive on the west side of Lemay Avenue), instead of the north
driveway (which aligns with the shopping center drive), for the most part, this traverse is north of
the existing houses. Diverting this traffic pattern thus accomplishes the essence of the design intent
which is to minimize the impact along the southern property line.
Regarding the church south access, and traffic delay, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford,
states on page 53, lines 12 – 20:
“The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north access,
which we applaud. And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of
traffic. We also don’t have an existing accident history there for that characteristic.
So, I’m assuming that the motorists are pretty cognitive of it, and will continue to be
able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this point, we don’t have a
concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody
exiting when they’re trying to consider what the other person may be doing? Yes,
they certainly can. Is it going to be a common, frequent activity? We don’t believe
so. If it does become something of an accident quantity, it’s also an aspect that we
have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will do so.”
Regarding the church north access, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 54,
lines 5 – 12:
“Let’s see, in …the north access to the church on Lemay, or…which will be their
access also (Regency Lakeview), we don’t see it as being an exit or entrance
problem, basically, just to the geometric layout, the left turns don’t conflict with each
other. And, we do expect…it was at my direction, the basically, the distribution of
traffic. And, we expect that most of the traffic that’s going towards Lemay from the
side (site), or using Lemay from the side (site), will either be going north, towards
the higher business area, or to the west, to the also higher business area. And, so,
with that, the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn.”
(Parentheticals added for clarity.)
168
November 8, 2012
G. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring
Its Previously Established Rules of Procedure
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants contend that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing primarily because they failed to consider that the
level of service for pedestrians falls below the required minimum.
This is the same assertion as in the previous section and is repeated but under a different ground
for appeal. As stated in the preceding section:
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following
testimony was provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript
page 48, lines 1 – 5):
“In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of
service criteria, that some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would
be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and
sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County
Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet them.”
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.”
Deputy City Attorney Eckman reviewed the appeal procedure and outlined Council’s options. He
noted new evidence can only be presented if in response to Councilmember questions or to prove
a falsehood.
Mayor Weitkunat requested procedural objections.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, discussed a document provided to Council by Ted Shepard
relating to addition of permitted uses. He requested additional information be added to the record.
Council accepted Mr. Patterson’s documents.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, discussed the proposed project and the allegations of the appeal.
Mayor Weitkunat requested information from Councilmembers attending a site visit.
Councilmember Troxell replied he attended to the site visit in order to obtain information regarding
the physical site. Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson also attended the site visit.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Andy Lewis, appellant, discussed the issue of pedestrian safety. He stated this proposed project does
not comply with the pedestrian level of service standards for this area. He argued the potential
pedestrian safety issue is detrimental to the public good. Mr. Lewis also argued property values in
the area would decrease should this project move forward and concluded the project is not
compatible with the existing area and the Low-Density Residential (RL) zone district.
169
November 8, 2012
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc., discussed the history and future plans of the church property.
She stated the property would likely have been zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use had the church
opposed its original Low-Density Residential zoning.
Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes, attorney for the applicant, discussed the addition of permitted uses
process and the way in which it was applied by the church and developer for this project. She noted
additional traffic is acceptable if it is comparable to a project with permitted RL uses and argued
pedestrian refuge islands are not a requirement in this case.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Mr. Lewis discussed Planning and Zoning Board comments which support less dense housing on
the site. He stated the traffic study should have been completed during peak hours for the existing
use of the church and discussed the ability of the intersection to be widened to allow pedestrian
refuge areas.
Dorothy Martin, 2912 Silverwood Drive, stated the proposed project is not compatible with the
existing neighborhood and requested that Council overturn the approval.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Lisa Evans, Regency Residential Partners, applicant, discussed the neighborhood meetings and the
changes made to the project by Regency to aid in alleviating neighborhood concerns.
Ms. Liley argued the addition of permitted process is site and project dependent and is an
appropriate process for this site.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Deputy City Attorney Eckman addressed Council regarding the manner in which it should proceed.
He suggested addressing the fair hearing aspect first.
Mr. Lewis stated due process was skipped by accepting a project for review that does not comply
with level of service standards. He suggested Council should remand the hearing based on those
issues.
Ms. Liley noted the APU must be approved prior to the PDP. She stated the fair hearing issues, the
pedestrian level of service and PDP transportation analysis, are both related to the PDP.
Mr. Lewis disagreed and stated two specific findings must be met for the APU to be approved: no
additional adverse effects and no detriment to the public good. He argued there has yet to be a
hearing regarding the level of service and safety issues.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman suggested deciding on the APU question with regard to a fair hearing
first, then the APU issue with regard to whether or not the Code was property interpreted.
Following those decisions, the PDP issue can be discussed.
170
November 8, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat stated the APU process is part of the Code and the question is not whether the
applicant should have used that process, but whether the applicant followed the proper criteria.
Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that the Planning and Zoning
Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing regarding the approval of the addition of a permitted use.
Councilmember Manvel requested input regarding the claim that there was not a fair hearing
because there was no determination of the level of service standards by the Board. Aaron Iverson,
Transportation Planning, replied the project was found to have met the level of service standards
from the 2011 adopted standards.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw, and
Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested the definition of the RL zone. Shepard replied the purpose
statement for the zone is as follows “the RL, Low-Density Residential District designation is
intended for predominantly single-family residential areas located throughout the city which were
existing at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code”.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested information regarding the estimated 2.8% increase in traffic.
Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations, replied that number was provided by the applicant and is likely
an increase over the existing traffic.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested information regarding why this intersection is considered to be
a constrained corridor. Stanford replied the policy language provides areas that may be difficult to
improve in a reasonable fashion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how the City organization reached the conclusion it is a constrained
corridor. Iverson replied the intent of the pedestrian level of service is related to how well the
system supports the new project. There is a robust pedestrian system in this area and the constrained
corridor issue relates to how to rebuild the intersection given the lake and existing development.
There is a question as to whether or not the auspice would be on this development to rebuild the
entire intersection.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the site specific nature of the APU process.
Shepard replied the other means by which a use could be added, which is a rezoning and a text
amendment, are not as site specific as is the addition of a permitted use. A submittal process for a
real plan must accompany an APU application.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the APU process could be used to apply for construction of a
duplex in the RL zone. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel questioned whether this project would impact the neighborhood more than
a much less dense single-family development. Stanford replied a single-family home generates
more peak hour trips per day than does a multi-family unit, by about four trips per day. For
171
November 8, 2012
example, a forty-home single-family development would generate more peak hour trips than would
this proposed multi-family project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked Mr. Patterson about the data he submitted. Mr. Patterson replied he
is attempting to show this APU process has never occurred in the RL zone and most of the
applications for an APU have occurred for existing buildings.
Councilmember Manvel stated this project is generally a good design and the developer has worked
to lessen the impacts of the project; however, he is unsure the APU process is intended for this major
of a change.
Councilmember Horak asked if the site plan should be taken into consideration regarding the APU
question. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied Council should now be considering whether or not
the Planning and Zoning Board correctly applied and interpreted Section 1.3.4 when it added this
use in the zone district for this property.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the Board did properly interpret and apply the criteria written in the Land
Use Code, specifically regarding uses.
Councilmember Poppaw requested that staff read the applicable Code section.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation to the developer for efforts to work with the
neighborhood. He asked if the project could potentially be brought more into scale by making the
buildings garden level, wherein they would be two and a half stories high rather than three. Ms.
Evans replied the water table on the site prevents the buildings from being garden level and garden
level apartments have become less acceptable to renters.
Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, that the Planning and
Zoning Board properly applied and interpreted the Land Use Code in approving the Addition of a
Permitted Use.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the use is compatible with the existing area.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated this change is a stretch for the APU process and as he is undecided,
he would opt for the existing residents and therefore oppose the motion.
Councilmember Manvel asked what additional process would be required to seek a rezoning.
Shepard replied the rezoning process has different criteria. First, a recommendation would be made
by the Planning and Zoning Board followed by two readings before Council. The process is less
detailed as there is no site plan requirement. Should the rezoning be successful, any of the permitted
uses in that zone district would be permitted. The total time in process would likely be three to five
months.
Mayor Weitkunat reiterated that the APU process is an acceptable procedure in the Land Use Code.
The question is not whether the process should have been used, but whether the Board properly
applied and interpreted the criteria.
172
November 8, 2012
Councilmember Poppaw noted that is an important distinction; however, she stated the project is
physically incompatible given its size and scale.
Councilmember Troxell agreed with Mayor Weitkunat and noted the ability of the project to be
physically compatible.
Councilmember Manvel stated the APU process has strong requirements for a reason but stated the
density is too high for the area.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson, Horak,
Poppaw and Manvel.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Addition of a Permitted Use because the
project fails to satisfy the requirements of appropriate neighborhood character.
Councilmember Troxell stated he has not heard appropriate arguments as to how the Board failed
to property interpret and apply the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Manvel stated neighborhood character and appropriateness are not clear concepts
and are up to opinion.
Councilmember Troxell argued it is not Council’s job to deem appropriateness, but rather to judge
whether or not the Board appropriately applied the provisions of the APU process.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Poppaw. Nays:
Weitkunat and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Project Development Plan because the
APU was improperly awarded.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the relationship of the APU to the PDP. Deputy City Attorney
Eckman replied the PDP fails as it was dependent upon the use being permitted.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Poppaw, Troxell, Manvel, Ohlson and
Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on November 13, 2012, so that the Council may consider going into an Executive Session for
173
November 8, 2012
the purpose of conducting the annual performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Judge, and for the purpose of discussing potential and pending litigations. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Troxell, Manvel, Ohlson, Weitkunat, and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
174
November 13, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November
13, 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, Nelson, Roy.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn into
executive session for two purposes: (1) to conduct the annual performance reviews of the City
Attorney, City Manager and Municipal Judge as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1)(a) of the City
Code; and (2) to meet with the attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff to discuss
pending and potential litigation, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. Yeas:
Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weikunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
175
November 20, 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, November 20,
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, and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz, Weitkunat
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry reviewed a revised Ordinance for Item No. 10, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code Pertaining to Contractor Licenses
and reviewed a language change for Item No. 18, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012,
Amending the Land Use Code by Designating Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development
Projects as Being Subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review.
City Manager Atteberry announced the public hearing aspect of Item No. 19, Items Relating to the
2012 Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable
Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs, and the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund.
Citizen Participation
John Fye, 1405 Briarwood Road, requested a review of the Three-Unrelated Ordinance and
discussed oil and gas drilling within the Fort Collins city limits. He supported allowing citizens to
be able to vote on oil and gas drilling.
Bill Mullaney discussed the Stacey Lynne case.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed the Denver Post “Failed to Death” series.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced the Loveland High School “Homefront Holiday”
Radio Show and the new Bas Bleu production. He thanked Council for citizen-input opportunities
provided regarding the midtown corridor.
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, supported a ban on hydraulic fracking due to health concerns.
Chris Gibbar, 6321 Treestead Road, thanked Council for supporting Fort Collins’ high quality of
life and supported a ban on fracking.
176
November 20, 2012
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, supported a moratorium on fracking.
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, supported a moratorium on fracking.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw stated she intends to request an option for a six-month moratorium on
drilling and fracking.
Councilmember Manvel stated oil and gas regulations are scheduled for consideration at the
December 4 meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 30, 2012 Adjourned Meeting and
the November 6, 2012 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and
Related Activities.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $15,457 as the 2010 and
2011 payments for public services and facilities. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on November 6, 2012, refunds the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to fund
sorely needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing
needs of Fort Collins residents.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at
County Road 38E Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012, appropriates
the grant payment received from Great Outdoors Colorado for the construction of the Fossil
Creek Trail at County Road 38E project. Great Outdoors Colorado awarded the City a
Special Opportunity Grant for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail from north of Cathy
Fromme Prairie to the Spring Canyon Community Park. Construction of the project was
completed this past spring.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City
Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
The City Code requires annual adjustments to certain building permit related fees. Capital
Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to follow the changes in
the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are
adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has
increased 1.8% and the ENR has increased 1.6%. Additionally the Code is being updated
to reference to the most recent amended manual, The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th
177
November 20, 2012
Edition, 2008. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6,
2012.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code
Pertaining to Contractor Licenses.
Community Development and Neighborhood Services is responsible for the enforcement of
the contractor licensing requirements found in Chapter 15 of the City Code. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012, amends the current Code by:
• clarifying minimum experience and qualification requirements at the application
stage
• creating license categories that better align with the adopted residential and
commercial building codes
• streamlining the application and project verification process
• establishing registration requirements for the currently non-licensed category of
workers
• increasing minimum liability amounts to recognized industry levels.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code
Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012, amends the
City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets so that City Council ,rather
than the developer, would select the name of the new street.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board.
The Transportation Board currently consists of eleven members appointed by the City
Council, and is one of the larger advisory boards. At the end of 2012, the terms of four
members will expire. One of those members is not eligible for reappointment because that
member has met the Council-adopted two term limit. Another member is eligible but is not
interested in reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes
to the size of the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This
opportunity was presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the
Council reduce the size from eleven to nine members. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012, amends the City Code to reduce the size of
the Board to nine members.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to
Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best
Management Practices and Stream Restoration.
The City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Master Plan has been updated to include stormwater
quality and stream restoration projects, alongside the already identified stormwater flood
control projects. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6,
2012, incorporates basin-specific water quality best management practices and stream
178
November 20, 2012
restoration and stability improvements in the form of updates to the existing City drainage
master plan to promote the purposes of the Stormwater Utility and advance the holistic and
integrated management of stormwater in Fort Collins.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation
Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement.
The Natural Areas Department (NAD) purchased the 137-acre Maxwell Farm, along with
12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water, with the intent of placing it
under a conservation easement to help conserve a buffer between Fort Collins and
Wellington; protect the open space and scenic values adjacent to I-25; and, sell it as an
agricultural property with limited development rights. The land has been leased to Larry
Maxwell, the previous owner, for farming and livestock feeding since the initial purchase
in 2009.
Natural Areas and Utilities have worked out an agreement for the NAD to sell eleven of the
twelve NPIC shares to Utilities for approximately 50% of the estimated market value, which
is $14,000 per share (based on recent sales information from NPIC). In exchange, Utilities
will enter into a raw water transfer agreement with the buyer of Maxwell Farm, and per the
terms of the agreement, Utilities will transfer the equivalent of eleven shares of NPIC water
on an annual basis to the Maxwell Farm in perpetuity. The advantage to Utilities is that
water decreed solely for agricultural use derived from other Utilities-owned NPIC shares,
can be substituted for water decreed for municipal use derived from the eleven NPIC shares,
which Utilities can use. The buyer will purchase the remaining share of NPIC water as it is
a NPIC policy that a farm must own at least some NPIC water in order to receive any rented
or transferred water. The single NPIC share to be owned by the buyer will also be tied to the
land by the conservation easement agreement. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted
on First Reading on November 6, 2012.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement.
The Vangbo Property was purchased by the Natural Areas Department (NAD) in 2005 with
the intent to place a conservation easement on the property to conserve the open space and
scenic values along the I-25 corridor and then sell it as an agricultural property with limited
development options. The land is currently leased to Alison Person, a neighboring
landowner, for grazing. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 6, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of the 105-acre Vangbo property and
associated ditch and water rights with a reserved conservation easement to Alison Person for
$300,000. The conservation easement does not allow any future development, but does give
the landowner the option to request the purchase of one building envelope on the property
from a future City Council. The undeveloped portion would remain in agricultural use.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC.
Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC is planning a 39.53 acre residential development called Mail Creek
Crossing PLD/PD, located just north of Bacon Elementary School on South Timberline
179
November 20, 2012
Road. This development will require the construction of off-site stormwater outfall
improvements on adjacent property to the north in order to connect with a stormwater pipe
in Kechter Road. The alignment of these improvements will cross the northwest corner of
a property owned by the City’s Social Sustainability Department. The City’s 16-acre
property was purchased in 2006 as a Land Bank property and is currently leased as a
residential/horse property. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 6, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a 2,346 square foot non-exclusive drainage
easement from the City in the northwest corner of the City property adjacent to Kechter
Road to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company.
Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) currently provides telephone and internet services to
portions of northwest Weld County and northeast Larimer County. With an increase in
demand from their customers for broadband services, NTC has begun upgrading copper
based telephone lines to fiber optic broadband lines. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted
on First Reading on November 6, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a utility easement to
NTC from the City across a portion of Meadow Springs Ranch in order to install
approximately 7.0 miles of fiber optic line as part of this upgrade project. The proposed
easement alignment would follow an abandoned state highway now used by the City as an
access road to the City’s property.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating
Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning
and Zoning Board Review.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012 amends the
Land Use Code (LUC) to require larger multi-family housing developments (50 dwelling
units, or 75 bedrooms) to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). A Type
2 review requires that the developer hold a pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The benefit
to the neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on
a project while it is still in the early stages of development. In recent months a large amount
of multi-family housing developments have been appealed by concerned citizens to Council
based on the assertion that the projects are not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.
This procedural change seeks to provide more opportunity for the public to participate in the
development review process for multi-family housing projects.
19. Items Relating to the 2012 Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City
Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities
Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership Programs, and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.
A .Public Hearing and Resolution 2012-105 Approving the Programs and Projects that
Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership Programs, and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.
180
November 20, 2012
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block
Grant Fund.
This Resolution will complete the 2012 fall cycle of the Competitive Process for allocating
$1,670,130 in City financial resources to affordable housing projects and public facility
activities. Ordinance No. 131, 2012, reappropriates Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds that have been returned to the program for allocation in the fall 2012
Competitive Process.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
The Golf Board currently consists of nine members appointed by the City Council. At the
end of 2012, the terms of three members will expire. Two of those members are eligible for
reappointment but did not reapply for reappointment. One member did apply for
reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes to the size of
the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This opportunity was
presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the Council reduce
the size from nine to seven members. This Ordinance amends the City Code to reduce the
size of the Board to seven members.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
The City’s Charter provides that service areas are provided by ordinance upon the
recommendation of the City Manager. This Ordinance amends the City Code, per the City
Manager’s recommendation, to create a Planning, Development, and Transportation Service
Area, reflecting changes in roles and reporting relationships.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative
session relating to state traffic laws. This Ordinance ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic
Code (the “Traffic Code”) is consistent with state traffic laws.
During a review of the statutory changes, staff identified additional amendments that would
make the Traffic Code more consistent and provide more effective and efficient local
enforcement.
23. Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
A. Resolution 2012-106 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known
as the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
181
November 20, 2012
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
This is a request to annex and zone 28.9 acres located on the south side of Kechter Road,
approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road.
This annexation is not associated with the proposed Kechter Farm development, which is
located southeast of the Kechter Crossing Annexation. The Kechter Crossing Annexation
does not create an enclave.
The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 –
Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, and west. Adjacent to the
east is a City-owned property that is part of the affordable housing Land Bank program,
which was annexed and zoned Low Density Mixed–Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) on
September 4, 2012. The Kechter Crossing Annexation is not proposing affordable housing
as part of the approved County plan.
24. Resolution 2012-107 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Hansen Farm Annexation.
The applicant and property owner, HTC, LLC (McWhinney), has submitted a written
petition requesting annexation 69.42 acres located on the west side of Timberline Road,
approximately 1.5 miles south of Harmony Road. The property, formerly a farm, is mostly
vacant, with the exception of the farmhouse (single-family dwelling) and some out-
buildings. It is in the FA1 – Farming Zone District in Larimer County. The requested zoning
for this annexation is NC – Neighborhood Commercial (6.33 acres), and MMN – Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (16.69 acres), and LMN – Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (46.40 acres).
25. Resolution 2012-108 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the
Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals Relating to the Approval of a Variance to Allow
the Existing Off-premise Sign (Billboard) in the Bnsf Railroad Right-of-Way at 190 West
Prospect Road to Be Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad
Right-of-way at 190 West Prospect Road.
On August 9, 2012, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approved a variance to allow the
existing off-premise sign in the BNSF Railroad right of way on the north side of West
Prospect Road to be relocated within the railroad right of way 70 feet west of its current
location. On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson filed a Notice of Appeal, alleging that
the ZBA failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code.
On November 6, 2012, City Council, by a vote of 5 - 2 (Nays: Manvel, Poppaw) determined
that the ZBA did conduct a fair hearing, and by a 7 - 0 vote determined that the ZBA failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
182
November 20, 2012
The determination that the ZBA failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code resulted in the City Council overturning the decision of the ZBA to
approve Appeal No. 2714.
In order to finalize this appeal process, Council is required to adopt a Resolution making
findings of fact and finalizing it decision on the Appeal.
26. Resolution 2012-109 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to Approve the Regency Lakeview Addition of
a Permitted Use for Multi-family Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and the
Associated Project Development Plan.
On July 19, 2012, the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approved Regency
Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use and Project Development Plan. On August 2, 2012,
Mr. Andy Lewis et.al, filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Planning and Zoning
Board decisions.
On November 8, 2012, City Council took the following actions:
1. With regard to the allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct
a fair hearing in consideration of the Addition of a Permitted Use, the Council voted
6 – 0 that the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
2. With regard to the allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in consideration of
the Addition of a Permitted Use, the Council voted 4 – 2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat)
that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code thus overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
3. With regard to the allegation that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in consideration of
the Project Development Plan, the Council voted 6 – 0 that the Board failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the of the Land Use Code, thus
overturning the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal.
27. Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management Policy.
The Fort Collins Utilities staff has updated the City’s Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy (Policy), which will provide further direction regarding the planning,
management and maintenance of the City’s water supplies and demands. The updated Policy
was brought before City Council for adoption on October 30, 2012. Council requested some
minor adjustments to the updated Policy language. Utilities staff has made the requested
changes to the updated Policy.
183
November 20, 2012
28. Resolution 2012-110 Adopting the City’s 2013 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by
Council and staff to determine positions on legislation pending at the state and federal levels
and as a general reference for state legislators and the congressional delegation.
29. Resolution 2012-111 Reappointing Councilmember Gerry Horak to the Platte River Power
Authority Board of Directors
The Platte River Power Authority Board of Directors is comprised of two representatives
from each of the four member cities. The Mayor (or Mayor’s designate) fills one slot and the
second representative is appointed by the Council. Councilmember Gerry Horak has served
as the City’s representative since September 2011 to the expiration of his term on December
31, 2012.
This Resolution reappoints Councilmember Horak for the new term which expires December
31, 2016 or until such appointment is changed by the Council.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and
Related Activities.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at
County Road 38E Project.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City
Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code
Pertaining to Contractor Licenses.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code
Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to
Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best
Management Practices and Stream Restoration.
184
November 20, 2012
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation
Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating
Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning
and Zoning Board Review.
34. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013; Adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2013, and Ending December 31, 2014; and Fixing the
Mill Levy for the Fiscal Year 2013.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2012, Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations
Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2012, Amending Section 2-237 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Golf Board.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 133, 2012, Amending Section 2-500 of the City Code
Pertaining to a City Service Area.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2012, Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins
Traffic Code.
23. Items Relating to the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2012, Annexing Property Known
as the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Kechter Crossing Annexation.
35. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2012, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
185
November 20, 2012
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 28, Resolution 2012-110 Adopting the
City’s 2013 Legislative Policy Agenda from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry reported on the Museum of Discovery grand opening. He reported on an
inter-agency DUI checkpoint held on October 30.
Kevin Gertig, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, reported on the High Park fire
expenditures regarding water supply and treatment.
Donnie Dustin, Water Resource Manager, discussed the outlook for future water supply.
Gertig discussed the recognition of Fort Collins’ water and wastewater treatment facilities for their
energy efficiency by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP).
Ordinance No. 112, 2012,
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations
for the Fiscal Year 2013; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years
Beginning January 1, 2013, and Ending December 31, 2014; and Fixing the
Mill Levy for the Fiscal Year 2013, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum on this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance is presented for Second Reading. This Ordinance sets the City
Budget for the two-year period (2013–14) which becomes the City’s financial plan for the next two
fiscal years. This Ordinance sets the amount of $483,637,562 to be appropriated for fiscal year
2013. Including the 2013 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of
$193,666 and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) of $1,038,682 the total City operated
appropriations amount to $484,869,910.
City Budget (in $ million) Adopted 2013 Adopted 2014
Operations $431.5 $440.5
Debt Service 21.2 20.5
Capital 32.2 27.6
Total City Operated Appropriations * $484.9 $488.6
Less Urban Renewal Authority (URA) (1.0) (1.8)
Less General Improvement District (GID) (0.2) (0.2)
Total City of Fort Collins Appropriation $483.7** $486.6
186
November 20, 2012
* This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate
ordinances.
This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance for 2013 was adopted unanimously on First Reading with the
following changes to be incorporated for Second Reading:
• Fund Offer 25.10 ENHANCEMENT: Workplace Safety Initiative Fund for $100,000 in
both 2013 and 2014
• Update the Ordinance by shifting $735,154 from Capital to Operating in the
Conservation Trust Fund
Since First Reading, there have also been changes made to the Fort Collins / Loveland Airport
budget which requires an additional City of Fort Collins contribution of $92,500 for 2013. This
one-time expense will come from General Fund reserves.
These changes, as applicable, are reflected in the numbers above and have been updated in the
Annual Appropriation Ordinance for Second Reading.”
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the citizen input processes for this budget and
thanked citizens, staff, and Council for their efforts toward this balanced budget.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Avago and Rocky Mountain Innosphere
assistance packages.
Roger Hageman, Hageman Earthcycle, discussed the integrated recycling facility options and
opposed that facility’s acceptance of organic material.
Maria Gsemann, Northern Colorado Clean Cities, supported the expansion of electric vehicles and
electric vehicle infrastructure.
Brian Parsonnet, 1208 Forest Hills Lane, supported the budget allocation for electric vehicle
charging stations.
Amber and Trevor Graves, Morning Fresh Dairy, supported the budget allocation for electric vehicle
charging stations.
Dave Altmann, Eaton Corporation, supported the budget allocation for electric vehicle charging
stations.
Ben Prohauska, 1528 Oak Street, supported the budget allocation for electric vehicle charging
stations.
Matt Russell, 631 Larkbunting Drive, supported the budget allocation for electric vehicle charging
stations.
187
November 20, 2012
Councilmember Horak requested information regarding the airport allocation increase. Beckstead
replied the loss of Allegiant Air lowered the Airport’s revenue by $480,000. This allocation
increase, in addition to a lower operating budget and deference of capital projects will aid in
covering that loss of revenue. It is possible that additional funds will be requested in 2014 if a
replacement carrier is not found.
Councilmember Horak asked if the level of funding will be returned to prior levels should a
replacement carrier not be found. Beckstead replied the long-term strategy for the Airport will need
to be discussed among Council and the Airport Board.
Councilmember Horak requested those discussions be held prior to next fall. City Manager
Atteberry replied a conversation regarding the Airport being a zero-subsidy entity was started prior
to Allegiant pulling out of the Airport.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 112, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak suggested the possible change of the City fleet vehicles to rental vehicles and
discussed the fact that the budget is a planning document.
Councilmember Troxell expressed support for the budget as presented.
Councilmember Manvel supported the budget as presented.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked staff and community members for work on the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he views budgets as compromise and collaboration documents and
supported the budget as presented. He stated the same scrutiny should be given to all projects.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 137, 2012,
Authorizing the Appropriation of 2013 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvement
Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2013 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $693,100, and will be funded from Airport
operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland ($177,500 from each
City), and interest earnings. This amount for each city is $92,500 greater than the previous year
contributions of $85,000. For the City of Fort Collins the original $85,000 is funded from General
Fund ongoing revenue, while the one-time increase of $92,500 will be funded from General Fund
reserves.
188
November 20, 2012
This Ordinance authorizes the City of Loveland to appropriate the City of Fort Collins portion of
the Airport’s annual operating budget in the amount of $346,550. This is 50% of the entire Airport
annual operating budget of $693,100.
This Ordinance also appropriates the City’s 50% share of capital funds, totaling $1,100,000 for the
Airport from federal and state grants; contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the
Airport General Fund. Most of the 2013 Airport capital funds, totaling $2,200,000, will be used to
complete major Airport improvements, such as taxiway and apron rehabilitation and some funds
are slated for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport business
development.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1963, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland agreed to the establishment of a regional
aviation facility and became owners and operators of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport,
located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Fort Collins, just west of Interstate 25 on
Earhart Road. The Airport is operated as a joint venture between the City of Fort Collins and the
City of Loveland, with each city retaining a 50% ownership interest, sharing equally in policy-
making and management, and with each assuming responsibility for 50% of the capital and
operating costs associated with the Airport.
The Airport’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient air transportation airport facility to the
general public and aviation community by providing airport facilities that meet Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) safety standards and to implement a plan that ensures the efficient
development of the Airport to meet the needs of the Fort Collins and Loveland communities.
Airport revenues cover operating costs and capital projects. Each city contributes equal funding
for Airport operating and capital costs. Airport development and improvement funds are also
received, for eligible projects, from the FAA and the Colorado Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics.
The annual operating costs for 2013 for the Airport are $693,100, and the City of Fort Collins
contribution is $346,550. In addition, the Airport Manager is recommending additional capital
expenditures and has identified the following funding sources:
FAA Entitlement Grant $1,000,000
State Grant 1,000,000
Airport Revenues 200,000
Total $2,200,000
The additional capital expenditures will be to continue aircraft parking apron phase two
improvements and for utility master planning and design engineering to accommodate Airport
business development, $2,200,000. Thus, the City of Fort Collins appropriation for the capital
expenditures identified above is $1,100,000 (50% of the total).
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates the City’s 50% share ($1,446,558) of the annual appropriation for
fiscal year 2013 for Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport budget. The City of Loveland
189
November 20, 2012
manages the Airport’s budget and finances; however, since the City of Fort Collins owns 50% of
the Airport, it is necessary for the City to appropriate its 50% portion of the Airport budget.”
Jason Licon, Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport Manager, discussed the Airport’s operating
budget and contributions from the City of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Manvel requested information regarding the possibility of funding a tower or tower
alternative. Licon replied the Airport is currently working with the State of Colorado Division of
Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation Administration regarding a potential solution for a tower or
tower alternative. The Airport is currently not at the level where the federal government will pay
for a tower and its staffing.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the possibility of alternative funding sources, such as public-
private partnerships. Licon replied the Airport has potential to look at alternative revenue sources,
both direct and indirect revenue streams and the possibility of using land for non-air travel uses.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 137, 2012, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak encouraged Mr. Licon, Mayor Weitkunat, and City Manager Atteberry to
ensure the systematic examination of all revenue sources.
Councilmember Manvel noted both eventualities, of either finding a new commercial airline
provider or not, must be discussed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-110 Adopting the City’s 2013 Legislative Policy Agenda, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the
analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by Council and
staff to determine positions on legislation pending at the state and federal levels and as a general
reference for state legislators and the congressional delegation.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Legislative Policy Agenda includes policies on issues that affect the quality of life and
governance of our community. It is used as a guide by Council and staff to determine positions on
pending legislation, and as a general reference for our state legislators and congressional
delegation.
190
November 20, 2012
The 2013 Agenda was developed with input from City staff and review by the Legislative Review
Committee. It contains policy statements on a wide variety of topics. This year, the document was
formatted to coincide with the City’s adopted strategic outcome areas. Areas covered in the
document include:
• Culture, Parks and Recreation
Cultural Services
Parks and Recreation
• Economic Health
Finance
Investments
Privatization
• Environmental Health
Air Quality
Climate and Environmental Protection
Recycling and Solid Waste
Natural Areas and Open Lands
• High Performing Government
Home Rule
Human Resources
Risk Management
Sovereign and Governmental Immunity
Telecommunications
Utility Services
• Energy
Water Supply and Quality
• Neighborhood Livability
Affordable Housing
Planning and Land Use
• Safe Community
Fire Protection
Hazardous Materials Management
Public Safety
• Transportation
Transportation
The proposed 2013 Legislative Policy Agenda is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Legislative Policy Agenda contains a number of policies that speak to economic impacts. The
Finance section (page 5) contains several statements that address the need to protect the City’s
revenue base. It also calls for support for legislation “that promotes sustainable economic
development.” Other policies that support sound fiscal practices are imbedded throughout the
document.
191
November 20, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Several sections of the Legislative Policy Agenda directly address environmental impacts and
support for legislation that will help the City forward its environmental goals. These include
statements under the headings of Air Quality (page 6), Climate and Environmental Protection (page
8), Natural Areas and Open Lands (page 8), Recycling and Solid Waste (page 9), Energy (page 12)
and Water Supply and Quality (page 13).”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the County landfill and Fort Collins’ home rule
status with regard to oil and gas drilling and fracking. He stated that constitutionally and by statute,
the Public Utilities Commission and the state legislature have no regulatory authority over the
operation of our municipally-owned electric utility.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-110.
Councilmember Horak requested information regarding Mr. Sutherland’s comments that the City
is not mandated to follow the state rules for renewables.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Poppaw asked for the support of Councilmembers to have the City Attorney
prepare, for Council consideration, an option for a six month moratorium on drilling and fracking
on land within city boundaries and on City-owned land outside of city boundaries.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the moratorium option be presented as an additional option to
those already being prepared by staff.
Councilmember Poppaw received the support of several Councilmembers to present a moratorium
as an option.
Resolution 2012-112
Making Temporary Appointments to the Ethics Review Board
Due to the Unavailability of Three Board Members, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 2-569 of the City Code establishes an Ethics Review Board, the purpose of which is to assist
Councilmembers and board and commission members in interpreting and applying the local and
state ethical rules.
192
November 20, 2012
The Review Board consists of three Councilmembers appointed by the City Council, plus another,
alternate member. Because three of those four members are currently unavailable to address
inquiries submitted to the Review Board by Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Manvel, staff has
recommended that the Council temporarily appoint two other members. This Resolution would
make those appointments.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On May 17, 2011, the City Council appointed Councilmembers Aislinn Kottwitz, Ben Manvel and
Lisa Poppaw to serve as regular members of the Review Board and also appointed Mayor Karen
Weitkunat to serve as the alternate.
Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Manvel have both submitted inquiries to the Review Board
as to whether they may have conflicts of interest in participating in decisions of the City Council
relating to a development proposal that may be submitted to the City by Woodward, Inc., in the near
future. Councilmember Kottwitz is temporarily unavailable to attend meetings of the Review Board,
thus leaving only Councilmember Poppaw available to address the inquiries submitted by Mayor
Weitkunat and Councilmember Manvel.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council appoint two other Councilmembers to serve on
the Review Board with Councilmember Poppaw for the purpose of rendering an advisory opinion
and recommendation with regard to the inquiries submitted by Mayor Weitkunat and
Councilmember Manvel.”
Councilmember Manvel stated the Council Ethics Review Board needs temporary new members as
a current question being brought before the Board involves existing members. He cited Resolution
2012-112, Making Temporary Appointments to the Ethics Review Board due to the Unavailability
of Three Boardmembers.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-112, inserting Councilmembers Troxell and Horak as the new temporary members of the
Ethics Review Board. Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to
November 27, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., so that Council may consider any additional business that may
come before the Council, including a possible Executive Session. Yeas: Manvel, Troxell, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
193
November 20, 2012
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
194