HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/16/2012 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SDATE: October 16, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Regular Meetings.
September 18, 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, September 18,
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: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weikunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Horak.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Roger Dodds supported the Corporation Separation Movement and the resolution which will be
presented for Council consideration on October 2.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Corporation Separation
Movement and the resolution which will be presented for Council consideration on October 2.
Chuck Washington, 1125 Deercroft Court, supported the reestablishment of Dial-a-Ride service to
the southeast part of town.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed the proposed business incentive package for
Avago.
Myles Crane, Human Relations Commission member, announced an elder abuse forum.
Steve Raimer, Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship, supported the Corporation Separation Movement
and the resolution which will be presented for Council consideration on October 2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 21, 2012 and September 4, 2012
Regular Meetings and the August 28, 2012 Adjourned Meeting.
34
September 18, 2012
7. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, annex and zone
17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of
North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding
properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well
as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and
POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the
east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District.
8. Items Relating to the 2012 Downtown Development Authority-Related Financing Activities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2012, Authorizing the Establishment of a
Revolving Line of Credit to be Paid Solely with Downtown Development Authority
Tax Increment Funds for a Six Year Period in the Amount of up to One Million
Dollars Annually to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and
Programs in Accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Plan of
Development and Approving Related Documents.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the Downtown Development Authority Fund, Funds Drawn from the 2012 City of
Fort Collins Revolving Line of Credit Established to Finance Downtown
Development Authority Projects and Programs and Funds for Debt Service on the
Revolving Line of Credit.
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) believes it would
be financially beneficial for the DDA and the community as a whole for a revolving Line of
Credit to be established with a local bank for a six-year period. The Line of Credit will be
used to finance DDA projects and programs. Ordinance No. 089, 2012, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, authorizes the establishment of the Line of
Credit and approves the execution of the First National Bank documents.
Ordinance No. 090, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012,
appropriates unanticipated revenue from interest earnings in the amount of $191,032; from
project savings in the amount of $331,113; funds appropriated but not spent of $940,430;
funds from the 2010 Bond Series that were not appropriated in the amount of $500,000; and
funds from the 2012 Revolving Line of Credit draw of up to $1,000,000 for a total
35
September 18, 2012
appropriation of $2,962,575. The DDA Board has authorized the expenditure on the various
projects and programs. This Ordinance also appropriates the debt service payment on the
2012 Line of Credit draw.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Services and Appropriating Funds from the
Police Operating Budget.
Ordinance No. 091, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012,
appropriates a grant in the amount of $45,000 from the Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice Juvenile Diversion fund for the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services,
which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice
Conferencing Program for all other offenses. A cash match of $7,440 is required and will
be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for Restorative
Justice Services. The total required match is 25%; an additional $7,560 in-kind match is
designated from the Eighth Judicial Probation Department.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2012, Amending Section 26-279 of the City Code
to Allow a Reduction for Calculated Evaporative Losses in Determining Wastewater
Volume for Existing Large Industrial Processes.
In 2010, Chapter 26 of the City Code was modified to establish an additional method of
determining wastewater volume as the basis for Wastewater Service fees. That Code
amendment allowed Utilities to recognize specific quantities of water consumed or
processed in manufacturing processes for the City’s industrial and large commercial
wastewater customers. Examples include cooling towers and other equipment or processes
where a measurable reduction in wastewater discharge can be determined and metered. The
reduction may apply to either a specified portion of the user’s facilities or the facility as a
whole.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, adds an
option to Section 26-279 of the City Code to allow for the use of nationally accepted
industry standards of calculation to recognize specific quantities of water that are evaporated
off as part of an industrial process and as a result are not discharged to the wastewater
system. The models would provide a quantifiable amount of water which should not be
included in the wastewater discharge volume which serves as the basis for Wastewater
Service fees in lieu of metering for existing structures. This adjustment will be allowed only
for large industrial customers, and metering will still be required for newly constructed
facilities.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2012, Designating the Schroeder House/Laurel
Apartments, 121 East Laurel, Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, designates
the Schroeder Residence/Laurel Apartments at 121 East Laurel Street as a Fort Collins
Landmark. The property owner, Brian Beeghly, is initiating this request.
36
September 18, 2012
12. Items Relating to the Forney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2012, Annexing the Property Known as the
Forney Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2012, Amending and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Forney Annexation.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 4, 2012, annex and
zone 23.16 acres located on the north side of LaPorte Avenue, approximately 1,280 feet east
of North Taft Hill Road.
The parcels to be annexed, all owned by Forney Industries, are currently located in Larimer
County’s I – Industrial Zoning District. The requested zoning for this annexation is the T -
Transition.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of
a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Coby S. Hughey and Linda C. Hughey.
In 1992, the final plat of Pheasant Ridge Estates dedicated Tract A to the City of Fort Collins
for the purpose of a detention basin. After the dedication, the developer certified to the City
that he could meet the required stormwater detention volumes without excavating and
grading the western most portion of Tract A (the portion adjacent to 1700 Westview Road.)
Due to the City’s change of use for this portion of Tract A, the adjacent property owners,
Coby and Linda Hughey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract A that
abuts their property at 1700 Westview Road. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on September 4, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a portion of Tract A to the
Hugheys.
14. Items Relating to the High Park Fire Remediation.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2012, Appropriating Additional Prior Year
Reserves in the Water Fund for Additional High Park Fire Remediation.
B. Resolution 2012-090 Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Additional Intergovernmental
Agreements Regarding Funding of Cache La Poudre Watershed Mitigation in
Response to the High Park Fire.
On August 21, City Council approved an emergency ordinance appropriating reserves from
the Water Fund to begin the soil stabilization efforts required to limit the impacts of the High
Park Fire on the Cache la Poudre watershed. That appropriation allowed work to begin on
the Hill Gulch, which had been identified as the most critical area comprising Phase 1 of the
effort for the whole 5,657 acres which will require aerial mulching and seeding per the Burn
Area Emergency Response (BAER) report. That work is anticipated to be completed in 2
weeks, allowing the next critical area, Boyd Gulch, to be treated before October. This
Ordinance seeks $2,000,000 from the Water Fund reserves to tackle the soil stabilization
efforts in the Boyd Gulch and other high-priority areas to be completed in 2012.
37
September 18, 2012
On August 21, City Council also approved Resolution 2012-079 authorizing the Mayor to
sign two Intergovernmental Agreements to allow the initial work to be done in Boyd Gulch.
With the additional funding being requested through Ordinance No. 098, 2012, it will be
necessary to enter into similar agreements to complete the additional soil stabilization
efforts.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First
Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended
and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement
Committee.
The existing structure of the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (GERC) has 6
positions and must include at least 3 active employee members and only 1 retiree receiving
a benefit. The GERC recommends more flexibility in appointment of committee
representatives by changing those 4 positions to be any of the following: an active employee,
a former employee that is vested but not yet receiving a benefit, or a retiree receiving a
benefit.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School
Program.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Office has received a $27,500 federal grant
through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2012–13 Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) program. This funding will allow the City’s Safe Routes to School Program,
administered and staffed by Transportation Planning, to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
At the request of the Youth Advisory Board, and at the direction of Council, this Ordinance
amends the terms of members of the Youth Advisory Board so that terms begin June 1 and
expire May 31. This change will allow newly appointed members to include Youth
Advisory Board meetings and activities when planning for the upcoming school year. The
Youth Advisory Board does not meet during the summer months.
The terms of all City boards and commissions expire on December 31 as required by
Ordinance No. 070, 2000. This Ordinance provides that the next time the Boards and
Commissions Manual is updated, the term expiration dates of the City Boards and
Commissions will be addressed in the Manual.
18. Resolution 2012-091 Amending Resolution 2006-124 to Revise the Process for City Council
Evaluation of the Performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2006-124 outlines the process for completion of the annual formal performance
evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge (the “Employees”), as
well as the process for determining compensation and benefit changes. In order to improve
38
September 18, 2012
communication and provide more timely information to Council, the due date for Employee
self-evaluations and compensation requests will be moved from 4 days prior to the
Employees annual review to 20 days prior.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
8. Items Relating to the 2012 Downtown Development Authority-Related Financing Activities.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2012, Authorizing the Establishment of a
Revolving Line of Credit to be Paid Solely with Downtown Development Authority
Tax Increment Funds for a Six Year Period in the Amount of up to One Million
Dollars Annually to Finance Downtown Development Authority Projects and
Programs in Accordance with the Downtown Development Authority Plan of
Development and Approving Related Documents.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in
the Downtown Development Authority Fund, Funds Drawn from the 2012 City of
Fort Collins Revolving Line of Credit Established to Finance Downtown
Development Authority Projects and Programs and Funds for Debt Service on the
Revolving Line of Credit.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenues
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Services and Appropriating Funds from the
Police Operating Budget.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2012, Amending Section 26-279 of the City Code
to Allow a Reduction for Calculated Evaporative Losses in Determining Wastewater
Volume for Existing Large Industrial Processes.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2012, Designating the Schroeder House/Laurel
Apartments, 121 East Laurel, Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
12. Items Relating to the Forney Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2012, Annexing the Property Known as the
Forney Annexation.
39
September 18, 2012
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2012, Amending and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Forney Annexation.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of
a Tract of Stormwater Utility Property to Coby S. Hughey and Linda C. Hughey.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 098, 2012, Appropriating Additional Prior Year Reserves
in the Water Fund for Additional High Park Fire Remediation.
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2012, Amending Certain Provisions of the Land Use
Code to Afford Better Regulation of Multi-Family, High Density Housing Developments
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the First
Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended
and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees Retirement
Committee.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to School
Program.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and
Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas,
a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to
Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action
Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Kim Newcomer, Communication and Public Involvement Manager, provided a brief overview of
the growing mobile internet market and stated the City has created several different mobile
applications, both for the public and employees.
Dan Coldiron, Chief Information Officer, reviewed the most popular City applications. He
announced the City’s website was awarded the Pinnacle Award from the National Association of
Government Webmasters as the best website in the nation for medium-sized organizations.
40
September 18, 2012
Lynn Sanchez, Wellness Program Coordinator, provided an overview of the City’s employee
wellness program and stated the City’s health claim costs are trending in a positive direction.
Rick Richter, Interim City Engineer, discussed the MAX bus rapid transit construction and stated
the Mason Street two-way conversion has occurred. He stated downtown station construction will
begin after the first of the year. He stated construction on the south transit center recently began.
Claire Thomas, Public Relations Coordinator, announced the Mason to the MAX event to be held
Thursday, September 27 and a public open house to be held October 3
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the timing of the construction of the railroad-required
pedestrian and bike overpass. Richter replied that project will likely be re-bid in March of 2013 with
construction in the spring 2013. Tomas stated there is a full communication plan in place for that
project as well.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked the Parks Department for its work with the Southridge
Community Association.
Councilmember Troxell reported on the 100 year anniversary celebration and fireworks at City Park.
Councilmember Poppaw reported on the current exhibits at the newly renovated Lincoln Center.
Mayor Weitkunat announced the current vacancies on City boards and commissions and encouraged
citizens to apply.
Ordinance No. 092, 2012,
Amending Certain Provisions of the Land Use Code to Afford Better Regulation of Multi-
Family, High Density Housing Developments, Adopted as Amended on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At City Council’s direction, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS)
department analyzed what immediate measures Council could consider to help mitigate adverse
impacts of current and future multi-family housing in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods.
This Ordinance, adopted 6-1 (Kottwitz) on First Reading on September 4, 2012 will:
1. require Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) land use and development
standards for all multi-family projects, particularly outside the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
2. modify the Neighborhood Commercial zone district to ensure a significant commercial
component.
3. require an operation, management and security study for larger multi-family developments.”
41
September 18, 2012
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, discussed feedback
received from the Planning and Zoning Board and other groups regarding these proposed changes.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not recommend approval on Second Reading.
Troy Jones, Affordable Housing Board member, stated the Affordable Housing Board would like
to see the Second Reading of this item postponed for further consideration.
Jeffery Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors President, supported the proposed changes but asked
that there be some consideration of a floor provision for the security, operation, and management
plan requirements, and some consideration of possible exemptions for affordable housing
developments and those with a majority of owner-occupied units.
Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett Road, supported the Ordinance and stated it is a product of the Student
Housing Action Plan process and reflects compromise.
Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed general support for the
Ordinance, but expressed concern regarding the expedited process and suggested exemptions for
affordable housing and small developments.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the expedited process.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chief Executive Officer, expressed general support
for the Ordinance, but expressed concern regarding the expedited process. He requested
consideration of exemptions for affordable housing and a possible postponement to allow
consideration by the Affordable Housing Board.
Mayor Weitkunat asked that staff define multi-family housing as it applied in this case. Ted
Shepard, Chief Planner, replied the definition will not change - multi-family housing refers to a
three-plex or greater and there is no ownership or student aspect to the definition.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the twenty-five foot setback would apply to a three or four-plex
being built next to a residential dwelling. Shepard replied geographic specific zone standards of the
Land Use Code will override these citywide standards.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the removal of the fifty unit minimum. Kadrich replied that change
was suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board through a work session. It was also suggested by
Council and citizen groups.
Councilmember Manvel clarified that the idea of having a specific threshold was rejected; however,
the flexibility to have extensive security and more management for larger projects does exist.
Councilmember Troxell requested a summary of the Planning and Zoning Board discussion.
Kadrich replied the Board considered whether or not to recommend this phase one of the Land Use
Code proposals for adoption. She stated the first motion stated the Board “cannot support Land Use
Issue 920 unless and until more extensive stakeholder and public outreach is conducted, and a
thorough analysis is conducted and evaluated, we cannot support this Land Use Code change. We
are not convinced it provides an actual solution to the problems associated to multi-family housing
projects that we have reviewed.” Kadrich stated that motion was approved unanimously and that
42
September 18, 2012
the Board went on to discuss the NC zone change. That motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. The
third motion was that the Board cannot support the Land Use Code Issue 924, which is the
operations, management, and security study “unless and until more extensive stakeholder and public
outreach is conducted and a subsequent thorough analysis is performed and evaluated, we cannot
support this specific proposed Land Use change. And in this case, we are not convinced this
proposal is appropriate for inclusion in the Land Use Code.” That motion was approved
unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Manvel requested staff input on whether or not this change does belong in the Land
Use Code. Kadrich replied it could be part of the City Code and governed through Neighborhood
Services. The staff recommendation was specific to comments received from the public.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if most of the public outreach had occurred in neighborhoods around and
near CSU. Kadrich replied she was uncertain; however, most of the written input received did come
from the West Central Neighborhood area, as well as around campus.
Mayor Weitkunat questioned whether or not the management and security requirement is necessary
as a universal code change that has merit citywide.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the fifty unit minimum was originally in both the security study
portion and the setback portion. Shepard replied it was just in the operations, management, and
security plan provision.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if staff has recommended any changes between First and Second
Reading. Kadrich replied it is not too late to delay Second Reading or separate out part of the
proposed changes. She stated the Code does have provisions to make exemptions for affordable
housing.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the process had been expedited due to a request by some
Councilmembers. Kadrich replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion to postpone Second Reading of Ordinance No. 092, for two
weeks in order to obtain additional input from the Affordable Housing Board. The motion was not
seconded.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 092, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she did not second the motion for postponement as she did not want
the two week limit.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he does not care if the operation, management and security study is
in the Code as long as it works the way it should and offers protection to existing single-family
neighborhoods. He stated he would not support attempts to exempt affordable housing from these
standards, given the definition of affordable housing is not specific enough. Additionally, the Code
already provides the ability for affordable housing projects to be exempted from certain projects.
He noted Council did not adopt a moratorium on these types of projects in exchange for working
at a more expedited pace on regulations.
43
September 18, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to amend Ordinance No.
092, 2012, by striking section 3.8.29(G), in reference to the multi-family development standards for
operational management and security plan.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would like to see that aspect placed in the Student Housing Action Plan
to come forward in another venue.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the requirement coming back in another format.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Troxell,
Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion to adopt the Ordinance as further
discussion should occur with stakeholders and the public.
Councilmember Manvel expressed appreciation for the Planning and Zoning Board comments but
noted most of the Board’s objections were related to process concerns.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support the motion and disagreed that this process
is an alternative to a moratorium.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted staff always has the ability to bring forward suggested changes should
they become necessary.
Councilmember Troxell stated he does not want staff to be bound to artificial timelines.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the timeline is related to Council’s work plan.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion as this is a good first step to begin the process
of correcting what is happening in our neighborhoods.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 092, 2012, as amended, was as follows: Yeas:
Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson and Poppaw. Nays: Troxell and Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 102, 2012,
Authorizing and Approving the Execution and Delivery by the City of a Site and
Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and Related Documents, Concerning
the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas, a Deicing Materials Storage
Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease
Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action Previously Taken; and Providing
Other Matters Related Thereto, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
44
September 18, 2012
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Circumstances are favorable to refinance the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPs). Bank of
America has proposed terms for the new debt that result in a net present value savings of $4.8
million and equates to 13.4% of the refunded principal. The 2012 debt will mature in the same time
frames as before: Police through 2026, Natural Areas through 2019, and Transportation through
2024.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2004 COPs of $48.7 million were issued to acquire open space areas that included Soapstone,
Bobcat Ridge, Andrijeski, and Coyote Ridge; construct a new police facility; and construct a
sand/salt storage facility for the streets department. Debt payments go through June 1, 2026. The
average coupon interest on the remaining 2004 certificates is 5.19%.
Although market rates have been low for some time now, refinancing was delayed because the 2004
debt is not callable until June 1, 2014. An escrow account will continue to make payments on the
2004 COP’s until the call date.
Bank of America submitted the best and lowest proposal among four proposals received through a
Request for Proposal process. Terms are 1.82% through 2026, callable in 5 years, and a step down
payment structure relating to each project that is similar to the existing debt service schedule.
The settlement date for issuing the refunding certificates is expected to occur before October 18,
2012.
Supporting the City in this financing deal are the law firm of Sherman & Howard and the financial
consulting firm of BLX.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The net cash savings will be about $5.9 million with a net present value of $4.8 million that is 13.4%
of the refunded principal. In 2013 the savings will be approximately $648,000.
45
September 18, 2012
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated this is a good news, cost savings item.
John Voss, Controller/Assistant Financial Officer, stated the term “certificate of participation” is a
type of debt and discussed the items funded by it beginning in 2004. Interest rates are now favorable
for refinancing and this refinance will result in cash savings of $5.9 million.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the $403,198 has already been factored into the budget. Beckstead
replied it has not yet been factored into the budget and will need to be dealt with in 2013-2014.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed concern that these types of costs always manage to be covered
whereas certain expenditures desired for public improvements by Council cannot always be funded.
Beckstead noted this refinance will result in $4.4 million in savings to the General Fund over the
next fourteen years; therefore, reserves can be used in the next four years with the security that they
can be replenished over the final ten years of this financing term. Additionally, sales tax revenues
have been higher than anticipated.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended staff for work on the item.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 102, 2012, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing on the 2013-2014 Recommended
Biennial Budget for the City of Fort Collins, Hearing was Held
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the first official public hearing on the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial
Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on
the 2013-2014 budget.
In an effort to receive further public input, a second public hearing is scheduled for the October 2,
2012 Council meeting. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on
Tuesday, October 16 and Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the Main Library, the
Harmony Branch Library, Council Tree Library, or the City Clerk’s Office. The recommended
budget can also be viewed online at www.fcgov.com/budget.”
Mayor Weitkunat noted this is a public hearing and stated additional hearings will be held October
2, 16, and November 20.
Edye Slovick, 5706 Wingfoot Drive, supported the addition of Dial-a-Ride service in southeast Fort
Collins.
46
September 18, 2012
Ellen Lirley, 3201 Sharps Street, supported the items that have been recommended for funding
relating to the Senior Center and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion
from the Building Community Choices funds.
Joan Black, 1206 Canvasback Court, supported funding for Dial-a-Ride and Transfort in southeast
Fort Collins.
Sandy Gordon, 300 Remington, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion.
Marjorie Morningstar, 2237 Dover Drive, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and
requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the Building Community
Choices funds.
Deborah Flynn, Green Ride Colorado, supported funding for the ClimateWise program.
John Drigot, 3321 Snowbrush Court, Poudre Valley Health Systems Sustainability Coordinator,
supported funding for the ClimateWise program.
Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, Senior Center Expansion Committee Chairperson,
supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and requested $1 million in funding for the
Senior Center expansion from the Building Community Choices funds.
Linda Gabel, 826 Blondel Street, Senior Advisory Boardmember, supported funding for the Senior
Center expansion and requested $1 million in funding for the Senior Center expansion from the
Building Community Choices funds.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported funding for several portions
of the Environmental Health portion of the budget. He requested that Council consider funding the
Landscape Transform to Xeriscape offer.
Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the Senior Center expansion and for arts
and culture programs, specifically the Arts Incubator of the Rockies.
Rick Cullen, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for solar programs.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported funding for transit and Transfort.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the majority of Council will work hard to fill the $500,000 gap for
the Senior Center.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked that staff follow-up regarding southeast service of Dial-a-Ride prior
to the final work session on the budget.
Councilmember Troxell stated the Arts Incubator of the Rockies is currently unfunded and stated
he would like funding considered.
47
September 18, 2012
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
48
October 2, 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, October 2, 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, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 7:06 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated that Item No. 22, Resolution 2012-093, Adopting “The Parking Plan:
Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods” as an Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
Adopting Relating Changes to the Transportation Master Plan, is being postponed to a later date
in order to allow time for community input.
Citizen Participation
James Owiny, Human Relations Commission member, announced an Elder Abuse Forum to be held
October 22, 2012, at the Senior Center.
Liz Prusner, Fort Collins resident, expressed concern regarding the potential financial impacts of
the proposed on-campus stadium and opposed any funding by the City of Fort Collins.
Lynn Hall, Fort Collins resident, announced October as Arts and Humanities Month and supported
the arts community in Fort Collins.
Wes Kenney, Fort Collins Symphony Musical Director, thanked Council for its support of
performing arts and the Symphony and announced the upcoming Symphony season.
Catherine Douras, Fort Collins Women’s Commission member, supported the Day of the Girl
proclamation.
Gary Peterson, Fort Collins resident, supported ballot question 301 and state ballot issue 64, the
medical marijuana items.
49
October 2, 2012
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell noted there is no consideration in the current budget for support of the on-
campus stadium and suggested the possibility of Council considering Resolutions regarding any type
of City costs for infrastructure related to the stadium. He stated information provided by Poudre
School District was cited with regard to ballot issue 301.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the
First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as
Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees
Retirement Committee.
The existing structure of the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (GERC) has 6
positions and must include at least 3 active employee members and only 1 retiree receiving
a benefit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012,
changes those 4 positions to be any of the following: an active employee, a former employee
that is vested but not yet receiving a benefit, or a retiree receiving a benefit.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to
School Program.
The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Office has received a $27,500 federal grant
through the Colorado Department of Transportation for the FY 2012–13 Safe Routes to
School program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18,
2012, appropriates the funding. The grant allows the City’s Safe Routes to School Program,
administered and staffed by Transportation Planning, to enhance its pedestrian and bicycle
safety education programs.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
At the request of the Youth Advisory Board, and at the direction of Council, this Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, amends the terms of
members of the Youth Advisory Board so that terms begin June 1 and expire May 31. This
change will allow newly appointed members to include Youth Advisory Board meetings and
activities when planning for the upcoming school year. The Youth Advisory Board does not
meet during the summer months.
The terms of all City boards and commissions expire on December 31 as required by
Ordinance No. 070, 2000. This Ordinance provides that the next time the Boards and
Commissions Manual is updated, the term expiration dates of the City Boards and
Commissions will be addressed in the Manual.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and
50
October 2, 2012
Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas,
a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to
Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action
Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 18, 2012, authorizes
the refinance of the 2004 Certificates of Participation (COPs). Bank of America has
proposed terms for the new debt that result in a net present value savings of $4.8 million and
equates to 13.4% of the refunded principal. The 2012 debt will mature in the same time
frames as before: Police through 2026, Natural Areas through 2019, and Transportation
through 2024.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
The annual Clean-up Ordinance allows for the appropriation of expenses related to
unanticipated revenue, grants and unforeseen costs that had not previously been budgeted.
The details of these clean-up requests were reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on
September 17, 2012. At that meeting it was requested that all use of prior year reserves be
highlighted, as well as any changes not seen by the Committee. A table with the use of prior
year reserves appears at the end of the Agenda Item Summary. The only items included in
this Clean-up Ordinance that were not reviewed by the Council Finance Committee is a
request for $28,277 of unanticipated revenue in Forestry and $200,000 for a tandem dump
truck in the Water Fund.
The purpose of this annual Clean-Up Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or
reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses
that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2012 budget appropriation. The
unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that
have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are
primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set
aside for that purpose. This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated
revenue in various City funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide by
ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits
the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee
increases or new revenue sources. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will
have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received
to cover those expenditures.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment.
The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing desktop computers and laptops for various City
departments. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $294,000. Payments at the
2.28% interest rate will not exceed $15,596 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase
payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the
purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 0.21%. 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.
51
October 2, 2012
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating
to Redistricting.
This Ordinance will amend Section 7-87(b) of the City Code to enact language that is
consistent with the original intent that the City Clerk, within 18 months after the decennial
publication of the U.S. Census, recommend district boundary changes necessary to ensure
that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the
most populous and the least populous Council district.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known
as Daisy Street and Columbine Street.
Daisy Street and Columbine Street have existed since 1956. The City has not found any
record that would indicate that the street right-of-way has been dedicated to the City by plat
or separate document, but the City believes that under the doctrine of “common law
dedication” it is the legitimate owner of the streets. The roads are improved with curb,
sidewalk and asphalt and have been maintained by the City. All lots adjacent to these two
short street stubs have been included within the District at Campus West development
proposal that was approved by administrative hearing on May 7, 2012 and upheld on July
17, 2012 after an appeal to overturn the approval of the administrative hearing of said project
was heard at City Council. The property owner of the adjacent lots (the District at Campus
West developer) has requested that Daisy Street and Columbine Streets be vacated to allow
the parcels and the streets to be replatted to accommodate the multifamily development.
Vacations of public right-of-way are governed by City Code Section 23-115, which provides
for an application and review process prior to submission to the City Council for formal
consideration. The process includes review by potentially affected utility agencies, City
staff, emergency service providers, and affected property owners in the vicinity of the right-
of-way proposed to be vacated. This review process was followed in connection with this
proposal, and based on comments received; the City Engineer has recommended that the
vacation be approved.
All public and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and they report
no objections to the vacation.
14. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from S. Edward and Phyllis
Stoner, to install a telecommunication equipment for water meter readings for the Advanced
meter Fort Collins Project.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 099, 2012, Amending the City Code and Adopting the
First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as
52
October 2, 2012
Amended and Restated January 1, 2012, to Change the Make-up of the General Employees
Retirement Committee.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Transportation Services Fund for the State Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Safe Routes to
School Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2012, Adjusting the Terms of the Youth Advisory
Board to Coincide with the School Year.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2012, Authorizing and Approving the Execution and
Delivery by the City of a Site and Improvement Lease and a Lease Purchase Agreement and
Related Documents, Concerning the Leasing by the City of Open Space and Natural Areas,
a Deicing Materials Storage Facility and a Centralized Police Services Building, to
Refinance the City’s 2004 Lease Agreement at a Lower Interest Rate; Ratifying Action
Previously Taken; and Providing Other Matters Related Thereto.
19. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2012, Amending Article XII of Chapter 23 of the
City Code relating to Art in Public Places.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Equipment.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating
to Redistricting.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2012, Vacating the City’s Interest in the Streets Known
as Daisy Street and Columbine Street.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Attorney Roy announced some letters were included this evening in the record relating to
Council’s 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.
53
October 2, 2012
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Weitkunat announced the extension of the deadline for board and commission applications
to October 17, 2012.
Councilmember Horak reported on the Platte River Power Authority meeting and discussed water
leases and policies relating to those leases.
Ordinance No. 078, 2012,
Amending Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code
Relating to Art in Public Places, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 21, 2012. At that time,
Council provided direction to staff and the Art in Public Places (APP) Board to reexamine the
modification included in the Ordinance that caps the total annual contribution to APP from each
Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power) at $100,000. A revised
Ordinance is being presented for Second Reading that includes a revised cap option for Council
consideration and approval.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On First Reading of this Ordinance, Council provided direction to staff and the Art in Public Places
(APP) Board to reexamine the modification to the APP program that caps the total annual
contribution to APP from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater, and Light & Power)
at $100,000. APP, Utility staff and the APP Board reviewed different options for the cap and are
presenting for Council consideration on Second Reading a revised method of calculating the Utility
cap.
APP UTILITY CAP REVISION FOR SECOND READING
Art in Public Places continues as a 1% program, meaning City capital projects with a budget over
$250,000 designate 1% of their project budget for art. The revised Ordinance for Second Reading
includes the following APP cap for Utility projects:
The APP Utility contribution cap would be set as .5% of each Utility’s annual budgeted Operating
Revenue.
• Operating Revenue is made up of the payments received from the rate payer.
• Each Utility’s revenue from the rate payer varies in accordance with the size of that Utility;
therefore the cap would vary and be right-sized for each Utility fund.
• This option specifically limits the maximum impact to the rate payer to no more than .5%
of the Operating Revenue per Utility.
• Using a percentage allows the cap amount to potentially change over time, if Operating
Revenue increases or decreases, but never impact the rate payer more than .5%.
54
October 2, 2012
• The cap limits contributions from the largest Utility projects. For example, the Mulberry
Water Reclamation Project was budgeted at $25,650,000 in 2009. The uncapped APP
contribution was $265,500. A cap calculated at .5% of Wastewater Operating Revenue
would have been $90,803 (.5% of $18,160,570 Operating Revenue in 2009). Therefore the
Wastewater APP contribution would have been capped at $90,803, a reduction of $165,967.
Other large projects that would have been or will be capped under this scenario are the
Spring Creek and Fossil Creek Basins; Canal Importation; Drake Water Reclamation
Project; Halligan improvements; or service center improvements.
The Average Cap at .5% of Operating Revenue, based on 2008-2012 actuals, would be:
Light & Power: $461,813*
Water: $130,425
Wastewater: $90,491
Stormwater: $68,348
*Because the Light & Power Operating Revenue is the highest of the four Utility
Funds, averaging over $90 million annually, the .5% cap is also the highest cap. A
lower percentage cap on Light & Power could be considered. At .25%, the average
cap on Light & Power would be $230,906. Although still above the average Light
& Power APP contribution amount of approximately $73,836, the .25% cap would
further limit potential Light & Power contributions to APP.
In 2012, the total Utility Budget is $180,401,672 with Operating Revenues of $164,341,682. Art in
Public Places actual contributions were $100,266 or .019% of the total Utility Budget. Below are
two tables showing the Utility Rate Payer Typical Customer Bill for 2012 and 2013. The tables
illustrate the relationship between APP and the rate payer bill, based on actual and projected APP
budgets and show the maximum impact to the rate payer if the .5% or .25% of Operating Revenues
caps is reached.
2012
2012 Rates APP Actual APP Maximum APP Cap
Typical Cost/Month per Rate Payer .5% of bill .25% of bill
Electric $ 59.68 $ 0.01 $ 0.30 $ 0.15
Water $ 33.66 $ 0.06 $ 0.17 $ 0.08
Wastewater $ 30.26 $ 0.04 $ 0.15 $ 0.08
Stormwater $ 14.26 $ 0.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.04
Monthly Total $ 137.85 $ 0.12 $ 0.69 $ 0.34
Annual Total $ 1,654.23 $ 1.41 $ 8.27 $ 4.14
(1) Electric total of 8075 kWh over 12 months (2010 monthly average use)
(2) Water total of 98213 gallons over 12 months (2010 monthly average use)
(3) Wastewater 4600 Gallons Winter Quarter Water Use
(4) 8600 sq ft lot with light run off
2013
2013 Est. Rates APP Actual APP Maximum APP Maximum
Typical Cost/Month per Rate Payer .5% of bill .25% of bill
Electric $ 62.26 $ 0.01 $ 0.31 $ 0.16
Water $ 35.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.18 $ 0.09
Wastewater $ 30.26 $ 0.05 $ 0.15 $ 0.08
Stormwater $ 14.26 $ 0.02 $ 0.07 $ 0.04
55
October 2, 2012
Monthly Total $ 141.79 $0.15 $ 0.71 $0.35
Annual Total $ 1,701.48 $1.79 $ 8.51 $4.25
Average Increases for 2013: Electric 4.33%; Water 4.%; Wastewater 0%; Stormwater 0%
The revised Ordinance on Second Reading includes the .5% of Operating Revenue cap option. The
following two tables detail the past five years and next five years of Utility total budgets, Operating
Revenue, actual or projected APP contributions from capital projects, and both the .5% and.25%
cap options with impacts to APP for comparison.
APP Utility Cap as .5% or .25% of Operating Revenue 2008-2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Light &Power
Total Budget 100,843,892 95,792,694 107,246,097 106,977,193 112,752,791 523,612,667
Operating Revenue 83,752,596 86,957,098 91,213,692 95,892,159 103,997,211 461,812,756
Actual contribution to APP 138,815 49,256 142,835 16,950 21,326 369,182
APP as % of Total Budget .138% .051% .133% .016% .019% 0.071%
APP as % of Op Rev .166% .057% .157% .018% .021% 0.080%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 418,763 434,785 456,068 479,461 519,986 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 209,381 217,393 228,034 239,730 259,993 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Wastewater 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Budget 31,681,336 50,588,597 23,115,680 22,431,628 21,235,473 149,052,714
Operating Revenue 16,305,707 18,160,570 17,622,768 18,713,219 19,688,506 90,490,770
Actual contribution to APP 89,000 256,500 28,750 38,050 24,450 437,750
APP as % of Total Budget 0.281% 0.507% 0.124% 0.170% 0.120% 0.294%
App as % of Op Rev 0.546% 1.412% 0.163% 0.203% 0.129% 0.484%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 81,529 90,803 88,114 93,566 98,443 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 7,471 165,697 0 0 0 173,169
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 40,764 45,401 44,057 46,783 49,221 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 48,236 211,099 0 0 0 259,334
Water 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Budget 30,618,969 40,031,414 32,851,744 30,370,924 32,063,681 165,936,732
Operating Revenue 26,789,947 25,430,648 26,448,689 25,008,022 26,748,036 130,425,342
Actual contribution to APP 35,850 123,550 72,400 40,600 47,000 319,400
APP as % of Total Budget 0.117% 0.309% 0.220% 0.134% 0.147% 0.192%
APP as % of Op Rev 0.134% 0.486% 0.274% 0.162% 0.176% 0.245%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 133,950 127,153 132,243 125,040 133,740 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 66,975 63,577 66,122 62,520 66,870 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 0 59,973 6,278 0 0 66,252
Stormwater 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Budget 17,470,888 16,644,536 15,723,422 14,229,352 14,349,727 78,417,925
Operating Revenue 13,328,099 13,588,955 13,724,845 13,798,078 13,907,929 68,347,906
Actual contribution to APP 73,650 66,650 37,100 32,100 7,400 216,900
APP as % of Total Budget 0.422% 0.400% 0.236% 0.226% 0.052% 0.277%
APP as % of Op Rev 0.553% 0.490% 0.270% 0.233% 0.053% 0.317%
56
October 2, 2012
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 66,640 67,945 68,624 68,990 69,540 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 7,010 00007,010
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 33,320 33,972 34,312 34,495 34,770 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 40,330 32,678 2,788 0 0 75,795
APP Utility Cap as .5% or .25% of Operating Revenue 2013-2017
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Light &Power
Total Budget 119,604,695 124,868,020 123,447,384 126,631,643 135,807,745 630,359,487
Operating Revenue 109,235,769 113,794,095 117,217,900 122,872,600 127,804,700 590,925,064
Projected contribution to APP 13,075 13,337 12,642 12,894 86,402 138,350
APP as % of Total Budget 0.011% 0.011% 0.010% 0.010% 0.064% 0.022%
APP as % of Op Rev 0.012% 0.012% 0.011% 0.010% 0.068% 0.023%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 546,179 568,970 586,090 614,363 639,024 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 273,089 284,485 293,045 307,182 319,512 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Wastewater 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Budget 22,471,641 21,190,275 22,078,143 22,350,465 20,529,664 108,620,188
Operating Revenue 19,450,506 19,524,904 20,110,651 20,713,971 21,335,391 101,135,423
Projected contribution to APP 33,563 39,864 50,000 50,000 30,000 203,427
APP as % of Total Budget 0.149% 0.188% 0.226% 0.224% 0.146% 0.187%
App as % of Op Rev 0.173% 0.204% 0.249% 0.241% 0.141% 0.201%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 97,253 97,625 100,553 103,570 106,677 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 48,626 48,812 50,277 51,785 53,338 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Water 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Budget 32,836,906 34,588,260 32,025,578 32,524,130 32,476,435 164,451,309
Operating Revenue 26,553,614 27,569,551 28,692,805 29,840,397 30,737,475 143,393,842
Projected contribution to APP 50,037 74,789 50,000 50,000 50,000 274,826
APP as % of Total Budget 0.152% 0.216% 0.156% 0.154% 0.154% 0.167%
APP as % of Op Rev 0.188% 0.271% 0.174% 0.168% 0.163% 0.192%
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 132,768 137,848 143,464 149,202 153,687 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 66,384 68,924 71,732 74,601 76,844 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 0 5,865 0005,865
Stormwater 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Budget 13,857,411 14,046,997 12,343,383 13,553,945 12,971,959 66,773,695
Operating Revenue 13,853,000 13,974,000 14,043,870 14,114,089 14,184,659 70,169,618
Projected contribution to APP 23,129 25,040 26,857 27,394 27,942 130,361
APP as % of Total Budget 0.167% 0.178% 0.218% 0.202% 0.215% 0.195%
APP as % of Op Rev 0.167% 0.179% 0.191% 0.194% 0.197% 0.186%
57
October 2, 2012
Cap at .5% of Op Rev 69,265 69,870 70,219 70,570 70,923 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
Cap at .25% of Op Rev 34,633 34,935 35,110 35,285 35,085 N/A
Reduction to APP w Cap 000000
UPDATES TO “ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED” FOR SECOND READING
APP worked with Finance to address the non-lapsing status of APP projects to improve
accountability and transparency. This change was primarily addressed through an administrative
policy change; however, in making the changes as requested, Finance is recommending some
updates to the APP Code to accurately reflect the accounting process, update terminology, and
make section titles clearer and more easily understood.
The updates recommended for consideration on Second Reading are as follows:
• 23-302 Definitions: remove the “APP reserve account” definition and add the new defined
term “cost center” to accurately describe the fund for APP. Also remove the wording
“reserve account” throughout the Ordinance.
• 23-303 Accounts Established: retitle this section to “Accounting Methods” and revise
language in the Code to explain where the money is going, use current terminology, and
reflect the administrative change of budgets for works of art as non-lapsing. Administration
and maintenance budgets will remain as lapsing. Utility funds will still be held separately,
but the wording is updated.
• Change the headings for Sections 23-304, 23-305, 23-306 to more accurately reflect the
three program levels of APP.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Implementing a cap on APP contributions from each Utility Fund (Water, Waste Water, Stormwater,
Light and Power) as a calculation of .5% of the budgeted Operating Revenues in each fund will
reduce the contributions from Utility Capital Projects to APP. If the .5% of Operating Revenue cap
were in place from 2008-2012, $180,179 would not have been contributed to the APP program from
Utility capital projects, a reduction of 13%.
Compared to the $100,000 cap proposed on First Reading, had it been in place for the same time
period, $261,700 would not have been contributed to APP from Utility capital projects.
Looking ahead (2013-2017) at the projected Utility capital projects, if the .5% of Operating Revenue
cap is in place, APP Utility budgets will fall well below the projected cap amount, unless new
projects are added.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The APP Board reviewed the revised Cap option at its September 19, 2012 meeting. The APP Board
supports the .5% of Operating Revenue Cap as presented in the revised Ordinance.”
58
October 2, 2012
Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services and Facilities Director, introduced the Second Reading of the
Ordinance.
Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator, discussed the modifications approved by Council on First
Reading. She stated staff is recommending capping utility contributions to the Art in Public Places
(APP) program at 0.5% of each utility’s annual budgeted operating revenue.
Stilwell stated utility capital projects over $250,000 would continue to contribute 1% of their
budgets to Art in Public Places. The proposed cap is a separate calculation based on the rate payers’
payments into each utility. The cap limits the impact to the utility rate payers to a maximum of
$0.71 per month; however, the anticipated impact is expected to be $0.15 per month. At this point,
the anticipated Art in Public Places projects for the year should be funded in full, despite the cap.
York, Art in Public Places Board Chairman, stated the Board supports the proposed cap as a
reasonable compromise.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places and urged a
flexible cap rather than a hard cap.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards Street, opposed a cap on funding for Art in Public Places.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the subsidy of arts in the community and opposed
changing the funding for Art in Public Places.
Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, opposed a cap on funding for
Art in Public Places.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the discontinuity regarding the Light and Power budget
contribution. Marty Heffernan, Community Services Director, replied the operating budget for
Light and Power is far greater than that of the other utilities; therefore, the 0.5% cap is quite a large
number coming from that utility. The number of capital projects for Light and Power, and the other
utilities, is quite modest over the next five years. The impact of the cap will be somewhat muted
until a large capital project occurs. Over the past five years, given the number of capital projects,
the impact of the cap would have been to cut about 13% of the Art in Public Places budget.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the meaning of non-lapsing. Stilwell replied non-lapsing
accounts do not end at the end of a year.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she does not understand the rationale in using the operating revenues as the
cap. Stilwell replied the operating revenues were used in order to limit the potential impact to rate
payers.
Mayor Weitkunat stated it seems illogical to impose a cap that will never be achieved. Heffernan
replied the cap, had it been in place over the last five years, would have had an impact. The overall
capital projects for utilities over the next five years are fairly modest at this point; therefore, the cap
would not apply.
59
October 2, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat noted there was never intent to end the Art in Public Places program; however,
the funding being attached to utilities was never publically considered. She expressed concern
regarding the large build-up of reserves with no projects to fund. Heffernan stated any large capital
project will have the effect of having significant reductions on the APP budget.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 078, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel noted there are several changes since First Reading.
City Attorney Roy clarified the Second Reading includes several changes, including the 0.5% cap.
City Manager Atteberry noted the Executive Summary of this item erroneously states the item was
adopted unanimously on First Reading. Councilmembers Ohlson and Poppaw voted against
adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak supported the compromise.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would prefer no cap, but expressed appreciation for the
compromise.
Councilmember Manvel thanked staff for work on the item and stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion and its compromise.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed appreciation for the compromise and stated she would support the
motion despite her concerns regarding the extensive levels of reserves resulting from the program.
Councilmember Poppaw disagreed that the reserves were inappropriate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-092
Supporting an Amendment to the United States Constitution That Would Limit
Constitutional Rights to Natural Persons and Would State That Political Contributions
and Expenditures Are Not Constitutionally Protected Speech, Adopted as Amended
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council has directed staff to present a resolution urging the City’s representatives in the U.S.
Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that: (1) only human beings, not
corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and (2) money is not speech, and therefore
regulating political contributions and expenditures is not equivalent to limiting political speech. In
60
October 2, 2012
a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court held that
those portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited expenditures on
"electioneering communications" by corporations were an unconstitutional infringement on the First
Amendment rights of corporations1. In response to the Citizens United decision, some cities, states
and individual lawmakers have proposed amending the U.S. Constitution in the manner described
above.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their
general treasury to fund “electioneering communications” (broadcast advertisements mentioning
a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The Citizens
United decision held that portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited
expenditures on electioneering communications by corporations were an unconstitutional
infringement on the First Amendment rights of corporations. The Citizens United court held that
the First Amendment does not permit restrictions on speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate
identity. The court further held that the categorical ban on corporate political speech imposed by
the applicable provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 could not be justified on
the grounds that it was necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption.
The Citizens United decision has resulted in several governmental entities and individual lawmakers
proposing to amend the U.S. Constitution similar to or as described above. According to a website
called "movetoamend.org", the list of local and state governments that have passed resolutions
similar to the proposed resolution includes but is not limited to Boulder, CO, Seattle, WA, Telluride,
CO, Albany, NY, Chicago, IL, and the State of Vermont.”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated this Resolution is being brought forth at the
request of Council.
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, noted this Resolution was brought forth by citizens
and discussed the history of Citizens United and its case against the Federal Elections Commission.
The information would likely go to the U.S. Congressional delegation if Council adopts the
Resolution.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at this point in the meeting.)
City Attorney Roy stated the Resolution was slightly rewritten from the version presented by
citizens.
Councilmember Horak noted this was not a citizen initiative, but was rather a suggestion for Council
consideration. He stated he will support adding “and labor organizations” in two places in the
Resolution.
Roger Dodds, 2102 Creekwood Court, thanked Council for its consideration of the item and thanked
City Attorney Roy for his thoughtful changes to the Resolution. He supported the Resolution as
written.
1 558 U.S. 310 (January 21, 2010).
61
October 2, 2012
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Resolution and thanked
City Attorney Roy for his changes to the Resolution.
David Bell, Fort Collins resident, thanked Council for its consideration of the item. He supported
the Resolution as written.
Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, stated corporations are not people and supported the Resolution
as written. He discussed the differences between corporations and labor organizations.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker Street, supported the Resolution as written.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Resolution as written and discussed the idea that
money is not speech.
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, supported the Resolution as written.
City Attorney Roy noted the version of the Resolution his office worked on was the product of a
meeting held by Councilmember Horak and proponents of the item.
Councilmember Troxell asked how this impacts Fort Collins elections. City Attorney Roy stated
the City does not regulate independent expenditures but does have a limit on direct contributions.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the City, as a municipality, relates to the Federal Election
Commission. City Attorney Roy replied the City’s elections are governed by the City Code as a
home rule municipality.
Councilmember Troxell asked what other legal entities exist beyond corporations and labor unions.
City Attorney Roy replied there are a number of legal entities including limited liability
corporations, partnerships, and other kinds of associations. The Resolution only speaks to
corporations and labor organizations because the portion of the federal act that was the subject of
the case had to do only with those and with federal elections. The wording is such because the
court’s ruling was limited to invalidating that portion of the act and spoke to just those two types
of entities. The implications of the ruling is likely to go beyond those two types of entities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2012-092, with the addition of “labor organizations” in two places.
Councilmember Manvel expressed support for the Resolution and noted a change in the Constitution
which would be supported by this Resolution would result in allowing Congressional representatives
the ability to debate and decide the appropriate level for corporate contributions.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and
cautioned against its potential unintended consequences.
Councilmember Troxell stated this type of Resolution is not the role of city government and
expressed concern regarding Council’s consideration of non-binding issues.
62
October 2, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the Resolution as it reflects the opinion of a citizen
group and is not the appropriate role of local government.
Councilmember Horak stated local government does have the ability to affect change on a federal
level.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Weitkunat asked that the letter written to the U.S. Congressional delegation reflect the
divided Council vote.
Public Hearing on the 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial
Budget for the City of Fort Collins, Hearing was Held
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the second official public hearing on the City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Biennial
Budget for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on
the 2013-2014 Budget. Public input will also be taken during the budget adoption meetings on
Tuesday, October 16 and Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
The City Manager’s 2013-2014 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the Main Library, the
Harmony Branch Library, Council Tree Library, or the City Clerk’s Office. The recommended
budget can also be viewed online at www.fcgov.com/budget”.
Myles Crane, 4913 Langdale Court, supported the Senior Center expansion and requested the
additional $1 million in funding from Building Community Choices.
Irene Vernon, Poudre Canyon Road, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed the proposed funding for electric vehicle charging
stations and supported additional funding for public transit.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the budgeting process.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported funding for the Landscape to
Xeriscape budget offer and more funding for Transfort and Dial-a-Ride services. She supported
funding for the Poudre School District after school programs.
Bruce Henderson, Fort Collins resident, supported the Great Lawn budget offer.
63
October 2, 2012
Beth Flowers, 200 West Mountain, Beet Street Executive Director, supported the Great Lawn budget
offer and supported funding for the Arts Incubator of the Rockies.
Alex Blackmer, Atmosphere Conservancy Executive Director, supported FortZed funding.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the Great Lawn and the Arts Incubator of
the Rockies.
Bruce Freestone, 701 Peak Street, expressed support for arts funding, specifically the Great Lawn
project.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards Street, supported funding for the arts, specifically the Arts Incubator
of the Rockies project.
Dulcie Willis, Bas Bleu Theatre Company Executive Director, supported funding for the Great Lawn
project.
Rachel Vernon, 204 North Roosevelt, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
Frank Martinez, 3815 Celtic Lane, supported funding for the Poudre School District after school
programs.
York, Fort Collins resident, supported funding for the Great Lawn project and the Poudre School
District after school programs.
Rob Cagen, 1225 Buttonwood Drive, supported funding for the Great Lawn budget offer.
Jim Cambon, 3517 Canadian Parkway, supported funding for the ClimateWise program.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
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, Postponed
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 P.D.P.
64
October 2, 2012
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.
As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus
a clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units. 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 P.D.P.
• Voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview P.D.P.
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?
65
October 2, 2012
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.”
The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview P.D.P.,
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), board member 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), board member 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) board member Schmidt commented:
66
October 2, 2012
“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), board member 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
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 P.D.P. 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), board member 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
67
October 2, 2012
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 P.D.P., complies with the applicable criteria related to
adverse impacts. The Board found that the project would not create any more offensive or adverse
impacts 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), board member 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), board member 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:
68
October 2, 2012
“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.”
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), board
member 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), board member 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
69
October 2, 2012
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
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.”
70
October 2, 2012
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.
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
71
October 2, 2012
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.)
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.”
City Attorney Roy provided a brief explanation of the appeal process and noted only parties-in-
interest are allowed to speak at this appeal hearing. He stated there were some letters that had been
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to its hearing that were initially omitted from the
Council packet. Those letters were provided to Council today and made available to certain parties-
in-interest earlier today. Those letters were also made available earlier this evening for meeting
attendees.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the time limits. City Attorney Roy replied the initial
presentations are usually twenty minutes with a ten minute rebuttal time. However, the Code allows
the Mayor to establish those time limits.
Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the additional letters were not provided to Council
until this afternoon and suggested their late receipt violates the rules of procedure for the record of
appeal. She also stated there was a misclassification of some documents received by Council and
stated there were parties-in-interest who did not receive notice of the appeal hearing.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if any Councilmembers needed additional time to read the letters in
question.
72
October 2, 2012
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated she was
unaware of the notification issue. City Clerk Nelson stated she would need to do additional research
regarding the notification issue.
Councilmember Horak asked what redress Ms. Dubiel would like. Ms. Dubiel replied that
responsibility should not be placed with her.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough Drive, stated the Planning and Zoning Board did not receive the
same PowerPoint presentation as did Council and opposed the order of questions as presented in a
document summarizing the Council site visit.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the font was enlarged for the street names on some of the slides.
He stated he was asked by the City Attorney’s Office and the members of Council who attended the
site visit to write a summary of that visit.
Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, stated the record should be corrected; however, the applicant
does not have any procedural issues.
City Attorney Roy stated Council could vote to continue the item due to the irregularities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone the
appeal hearing in order to allow time for the correction of procedural issues and accurate re-
notification.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the possibility of holding the hearing on a different night given
Council’s full schedule.
Mr. Lewis, appellant, stated he supported postponement.
Ms. Liley stated the postponement would negatively affect the applicant; however, the applicant
would like to participate in a fair hearing and would not have any objection to a postponement, if
necessary.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Kottwitz, Horak, Troxell, Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson
and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy noted the appeal hearing should be heard within 75 days of the filing of the
appeal. He asked if there is any objection to going beyond that timeframe.
Ms. Liley stated the applicant would be willing to waive any objection to that timeframe as long as
the re-hearing is scheduled as expeditiously as possible.
City Manager Atteberry stated the October 16 agenda is full.
Ms. Liley asked if the City would provide re-notification and asked about the timeframe for that
notice. City Clerk Nelson stated re-notification would occur.
73
October 2, 2012
Mayor Weitkunat stated the appeal hearing will be postponed until a date agreeable to all parties is
agreed upon.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
74