HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/19/2011 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE M DATE: April 19, 2011 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek FORT COLLINS •
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 15,2011 Regular Meeting and the March 22,2011 Adjourned
Meeting.
March 15, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 15,2011,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Jones, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Center for Peace, Justice, and Environment, expressed concern
about the salary and lack of a job description for the newly created Assistant to the City Manager
position. She encouraged involving a third party to investigate Character Fort Collins' possible
religious ties.
Elaine Boni, Human Relations Commission, discussed the Human Relations Commission awards
and requested nominations by March 31 st.
Peter Hall, 1750 Summerville Drive,Human Relations Commission Chairperson,stated the Human
Relations Commission breakfast and awards ceremony will be April 29th. He thanked the Human
Relations Commission staff liaisons.
Richard Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive,discussed the development review process and expressed
concern that the process favors developers.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson stated there will be an independent fact-finding effort with regard to Character
Fort Collins. He stated the new Assistant to the City Manager position was created as a result of
Council's interest in sustainability.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the Human Relations Commission speakers.
Councilmember Roy asked about ground rules for the Character Fort Collins meeting. Deputy City
Manager Jones replied those issues will be discussed upon City Manager Atteberry's return.
Councilmember Roy asked if it would be possible for staff to meet with Mr. Thomas regarding his
concerns. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
218
March 15, 2011
Agenda Review
Deputy City Manager Jones stated Ordinance No. 019, 2011 has been revised as part of Item No.
24,Items Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 1, February 15, and March 1,
2011 Regular Meetings and the February 22, 2011 Adjourned Meeting,
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2011,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team.
The City has received a grant in the amount of$40,000 from the Eighth Judicial District
Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement Board to help fund victim services activities. This
Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1,2011, appropriates the grant
funds. No cash match is required.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2011, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery
Charges for the City's Raw Water for the 2011 Irrigation Season.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011, approves rates
for the rental and delivery of the City's raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these
rates to assess charges for agricultural use,for various contractual raw water obligations and
for raw water deliveries to other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water
is based on several factors, including market conditions and assessments charged by
irrigation companies.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Lease-Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011, authorizes the
Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement for vehicles and
equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.60 percent interest rate. The cost of the items
to be lease-purchased is $1,405,001. Payments at the 2.60% interest rate will not exceed
$225,429 in 2011. Money for 2011 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2011
budget. The effect of this transaction position for the purpose of financial rating of the City
will be to raise the total City debt by 2.5%. A competitive process was used to select
Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease.
219
March 15, 2011
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2011, Authorizing; the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Permanent Easement on Fossil Creek Regional Open Space to the Colorado
Department of Transportation.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested a permanent non-
exclusive easement on a portion of the Fossil Creek Regional Open Space as part of the I-
25/SH392 Interchange Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
March 1, 2011, authorizes the conveyance of an easement that consists of 3,558 square feet
located within the wetland north of Highway 392. The easement will be used to construct
box culverts for stormwater control purposes and to maintain the existing wetland
connection under the highway.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No.026,201 I.Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property
at 222, 224, and 226 West Mountain Avenue for Up to Five Years.
The City has been the owner of the properties located at 222, 224 and 226 West Mountain
Avenue since 1985. Moe Kamandy of the Mountain Cafe has been leasing this space since
1991. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1,2011,authorizes
the lease of this space to Mr. Kamandy for one year with automatic renewal for up to four
successive one-year terms.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned
Property Located at 2313 Kechter Road for Up to Five Years.
The City acquired the property located at 2313 Kechter Road as part of the Affordable
Housing Land Bank Program in January 2006. Located on the 15.9 acre property is a single
family house and three outbuildings. Ordinance No. 027, 2011, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on March 1, 2011, authorizes the lease of this property.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2011, Vacating Right-of-way as Dedicated On the
Plat of the Griffin Plaza Subdivision.
In 1977,the Griffin Plaza Subdivision, located south of Prospect Road and west of College
Avenue,platted several lots and a public street extending into the site named Tamasag Drive.
Although development did occur on the two lots adjacent to Prospect Road,Tamasag Drive
was never constructed as anything more than a driveway. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011, authorizes the vacation of Tamasag Drive as
requested by the property owner.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No.038,2011,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2011 Adopted City Budget.
Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund and
therefore funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the
220
March 15, 2011
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and funding
sources were all moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Therefore, unspent
funds need to be re-appropriated into the following year's budget. The purpose of the
previously appropriated funds remains the same: land conservation,construction of public
improvements,restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit
the citizens of Fort Collins.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039,2011,Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, Phase IV.
Right-of-way acquisition continues for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (the
BRT Project). City Council, in prior ordinances, has authorized previous phases (Phase I,
II, III,and III-A)of acquisition work,which account for approximately 70%of the necessary
real estate interests for the Project. The remaining 30% (approximate) has been on hold,
waiting for the design to progress.
This Ordinance pertains to the next acquisition phase(Phase IV)of the BRT Project and is
comprised of seven(7) separate properties ready for the acquisition stage. (For areas of the
Project that still require further design, at least one additional phase will be required). The
City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City's
acquisition process for the property interests within this phase.
As a federally funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as
amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this act, property owners must be
informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado
State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is
needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official
step in the acquisition phase, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the
recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be
conducted under procedures for federally funded projects,timely acquisition of the required
property interests is necessary. Therefore,City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent
domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
16. Items Relating to the FC Bikes Program.
A. Resolution 2011-024 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the State of Colorado Department of Transportation for the Purpose
of Supporting the City's FC Bikes Program for the Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Period
Utilizing Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant
Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund to be Used for the 2011 Fort Collins
Bike Program.
221
March 15, 2011
The City of Fort Collins' FC Bikes Program was awarded Congestion Mitigation & Air
Quality grant funding from the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization and
Colorado Department of Transportation for years 2010—2011. The Colorado Department
of Transportation(CDOT)has amended the FC Bikes funding contract with the City of Fort
Collins for 2011. The City's FC Bikes program will use these FY 2011 federal funds to take
a comprehensive approach to operating and refining the City's bicycle program. The
refinement and expansion of the FC Bikes program includes improving community outreach
and operational practices to increase bicycling while integrating safety education
components in a comprehensive manner throughout all of the programmatic activities. The
FC Bikes scope of work is congruent with the newly adopted Bicycle Safety Education Plan.
Resolution 2011-024 authorizes the City to enter into the contract with the Colorado
Department of Transportation in order to receive the federal funds for implementing the
City's FC Bikes program in 2011. These federal funds will be used to staff and operate the
FC Bikes program through implementation of the services and projects. Ordinance No.040,
2011, appropriates the$150,000 in Federal Congestion Mitigation& Air Quality(CMAQ)
funds awarded to the City for the FC Bikes program for fiscal year(FY) 2011.
17. Resolution 2011-025 Authorizingthe e Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the State of Colorado Department of Transportation for the Purpose of Obtaining
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Grant in Support of the FC Bike Library Program.
The Fort Collins Bike Library Program (FCBL) has been awarded Congestion Mitigation
& Air Quality grant funding from the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization and the Colorado Department of Transportation for work to be completed FY
2011. The City of Fort Collins contracts with Bike Fort Collins, a local non-profit cycling
organization, to manage and operate the FCBL. The FCBL program continues to improve,
refine, and expand the Bicycle Library program and services. These activities include
improving marketing and operational practices.Expansion includes incorporating additional
bicycles and check-out stations into the FCBL program and incorporating additional
community partners such as schools, businesses, and non-profit organizations.
18. Resolution 2011-026 Extending the Deadline for the City and Town of Windsor to Take
Certain Actions Required by the Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the
Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
On December 21,2010,the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the
Town of Windsor(the"IGA") pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the
intersection of State Highway 392 (the "Interchange"). The IGA states that, by March 31,
2011, the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the IGA. Staff has
recommended that this deadline be extended for sixty days to allow more time for additional
staff work and public outreach. Resolution 2011-026 authorizes that extension. The
Windsor Town Council is scheduled to consider a similar resolution on March 14, 2011.
222
March 15, 2011
19. Resolution 2011-027 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Water
Quality Boxes.
This Resolution approves expenditures of$39,500 for design, materials, installation and
contingency for a project with the artist Andy Dufford of Chevo Studios to create two water
quality boxes that will house and protect water quality testing equipment located in the Old
Town area. The project also become an educational component for this program.
20. Resolution 2011-028 Ratifying the Reappointment of Linda Gabel and the Appointment of
Cara Neth to the Poudre River Public Library District Board of Trustees.
Resolution 2007-026 ratified the initial appointments to the Library Board of Trustees on
March 6,2007. Seven Trustees were appointed to the Board with initial terms ranging from
1 to 5 years. The initial term of Trustee Nina Bodenhammer expired on March 6, 2011, and
she has decided not to seek reappointment for a second term.
On March 24, 2009, Council adopted Resolution 2009-031 ratifying the appointment of
Linda Gabel to fill the unexpired term of resigning member Robert Viscount. Linda Gabel's
term expired on March 6, 2011, and she has expressed a desire to serve another term.
The Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Councilmembers Ben Manvel and
Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson,
unanimously recommends the reappointment of Linda Gabel to the Library Board of
Trustees for a four-year term and the appointment of Cara Neth for a four-year term.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2011, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery
Charges for the City's Raw Water for the 2011 Irrigation Season.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Lease-Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment and
Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
Exclusive Permanent Easement on Fossil Creek Regional Open Space to the Colorado
Department of Transportation.
223
March 15, 2011
I t. Second Reading of Ordinance No.026,2011,Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property
at 222, 224, and 226 West Mountain Avenue for Up to Five Years.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2011, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned
Property Located at 2313 Kechter Road for Up to Five Years.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2011, Vacating Right-of-way as Dedicated On the
Plat of the Griffin Plaza Subdivision.
24. Items Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No.018,2011,Authorizing the Continuing Operation
of Existing Medical Marijuana Businesses.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code Governing the Licensing, Number,
Location and Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses,and Adding a New Article
Governing the Cultivation of Medical Marijuana by Primary Caregivers and Patients.
C.S econd Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2011, Amending the City's Land Use Code
by Adding Medical Marijuana- Infused Product Manufacturing Facilities as
Permitted Uses in Various Zones Districts, and Renaming Dispensaries and
Cultivation Facilities.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No.038,2011,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2011 Adopted City Budget.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No.039,2011,Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, Phase IV.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Transportation Services Fund to be Used for the 2011 Fort Collins Bike Program.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
224
March 15, 2011
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for further detail regarding Item No. 9,Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 023, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease-
Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such
Purpose. Ken Marmon, Operations Services Director, replied General Fund dollars are used to
acquire new vehicles, though they are managed by Fleet Services.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked why some vehicles are shown in Fleet Services and some are shown
in Police Services. Mannon replied the budget was already approved, and any changes will need
to be made during the next budget cycle in 2012. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to
discuss the transparency of the budget at the Council retreat.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Linda Gabel for her service, and reappointment, on the Library
Board of Trustees. She also noted Cara Neth will be appointed to the Board.
Items Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses,Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2011, Authorizing the Continuing Operation of
Existing Medical Marijuana Businesses.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2011, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 15,
Article XVI of the City Code Governing the Licensing, Number, Location and Operation of
Medical Marijuana Businesses, and Adding a New Article Governing the Cultivation of
Medical Marijuana by Primary Caregivers and Patients.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2011, Amending the City's Land Use Code by
Adding Medical Marijuana- Infused Product Manufacturing Facilities as Permitted Uses
in Various Zones Districts, and Renaming Dispensaries and Cultivation Facilities.
These three ordinances are being presented to Council to further clarify, regulate,and align medical
marijuana businesses to the State regulations and to the intent ofprevious local ordinances.
Ordinance No. 018, 2011, adopted on First Reading on February 22, 2011, by a vote of 6-1 (nays:
Troxell)allows for existing medical marijuana businesses that have met all requirements and paid
appropriate fees to both the City and the State to continue operating, even ifsuch businesses do not
meet the required zoning and location requirements.
Ordinance No. 019, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 22, 2011, amends
the provisions of Chapter 15,Article 16 and 17 of the City Code to align the City's local regulations
225
March 15, 2011
with the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, to adopt certain additional, more restrictive
regulations as permitted understate law, and to adopt local regulations for primary caregivers.
Ordinance No. 020, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 22, 2011, amends
the Land Use Code to add a definition for a Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturing
Facility, to add the use of such facility to the list of permitted uses in the appropriate zones, and to
rename dispensaries and cultivation facilities to be consistent with the Colorado Medical Marijuana
Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At Council's request the following changes have been made to Ordinance No. 019, 2011:
• The cap on the number of available licenses has been removed.
• In Section 15-488, nonrenewal, suspension or revocation of license, the words "suspend"
and "revoke", which were struck in error on First Reading, have been restored.
• Staff has proposed to address the 8 ounce limit between licensed centers and concerns of
crop failure by removing the limit which centers can buy or receive, but maintaining the 8
ounce limit in relation to sales. Centers would then be able to buy any quantity but could
not sell more than 8 ounces.
Staff has also notified the protected uses as identified in a motion during First Reading that those
locations are near a Center eligible for grandfathering. An online comment box was established
to receive email comments. As of the time ofprinting the agenda, no comments have been received.
Recipients were also encouraged to attend Second Reading. "
Deputy City Manager Jones thanked staff members who have worked on this item for over 18
months.
Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, stated Ordinance No. 018, 2011, proposes
grandfathering all existing medical marijuana businesses in their current locations. Ordinance No.
019, 2011, amends local licensing requirements to conform to state regulations and maintains any
more restrictive or unique provisions for Fort Collins. Ordinance No.020,2011,relates to Land Use
Code changes regarding the manufacturing of medical marijuana infused products. Changes include
elimination of the cap on the number of available licenses,elimination of the restriction prohibiting
individual patients from growing for themselves in duplexes or multi-family units, and elimination
of the eight ounce restriction on buying or receiving which would aid in problems with potential
crop failure.
Nestor Garrido, Natural Alternatives for Health, supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Scoot Crandall, Team Fort Collins Executive Director, 5044 Westridge Drive, read a letter
expressing concern about negative health impacts and adverse effects of medical marijuana.
226
March 15, 2011
Damian Farris, Top Shelf Colorado, 2601 South Lemay, supported grandfathering existing
businesses and supported staff s recommendation regarding elimination of the eight ounce limit.
He thanked staff and Council for work on the item.
Pat Conway, Top Shelf Colorado, 2601 South Lemay, thanked staff and Council for work on the
item, and supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Kyle Kauffman, Top Shelf Colorado, 2601 South Lemay, supported grandfathering existing
businesses.
Nick Dice, Medical MJ Supply, 810 North College, supported grandfathering existing businesses
and stated legitimate medical marijuana businesses are concerned with keeping teens and abusers
from gaining access to medical marijuana.
Joe Dice, Grow Shop Hydroponics, supported grandfathering existing businesses and stated black
market marijuana has decreased.
Roshana Martin, 149 Hilcrest, medical marijuana patient, supported grandfathering existing
businesses.
Wes Melander, Loveland resident, medical marijuana patient advocate, supported grandfathering
existing businesses.
Dean Opiccoretto, Fort Collins resident, medical marijuana patient, supported grandfathering
existing businesses.
Ken Correa, Solace Meds, 301 Smokey Street,thanked staff for work on the item and supported the
Ordinances. He suggested allowing local centers to sell to one another in the event of crop failure.
Brett Barney,Denver attorney representing two Fort Collins dispensaries,supported the Ordinances.
Sam Lucien, Medical MJ Supply, supported grandfathering existing businesses and stated black
market marijuana has decreased.
Cristine Romarine,Infinite Wellness Center, 1740 South College,supported grandfathering existing
businesses and asked for further consideration of the transfer limits between centers.
Melody Kenyon, Indigo X, 3621 Haven Court, discussed the medical benefits of marijuana and
supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Travis Mader, FoCo Compassion Center,232 East Vine, thanked staff and Council for work on the
item and supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Mark Slack, 1106 Cypress,medical marijuana patient,supported grandfathering existing businesses.
227
March 15, 2011
Michael Stolting, Medical MJ Supply, supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Rich Lapuma, Loveland attorney representing several Fort Collins dispensaries, asked why
Ordinance No. 019, 2011, does not include several state regulations, specifically why the City
regulations do not allow dispensary owners with felony convictions up to ten years old, as opposed
to five years under state regulations.
Amy Mason,Fort Collins resident,supported the rights of medical marijuana patients and supported
grandfathering existing businesses.
Sandra Gomez, Wellington resident, stated Fort Collins dispensaries serve many outlying
populations and supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Matt Ryan, Indica RX, supported grandfathering existing businesses.
Kirk Scramstead, A Kind Place, thanked staff and Council for work on the item and supported
grandfathering existing businesses.
Steve Ackerman,thanked staff for work on the item and supported the Ordinances. He encouraged
Council to consider eliminating the cap on trade between dispensaries.
Councilmember Manvel asked why staff has recommended regulations other than the state's 70/30
rule with regard to sales between businesses. Jerry Schiager, Police Services, replied enforcement
of the 70/30 rule is on an annual basis. The rule does not appear to protect Fort Collins' interests
with regard to overproduction.
Councilmember Manvel asked for comment on illegal supply and dealing of marijuana in the
community. Schiager replied the presence of marijuana in schools has increased, and that may be
directly linked to the existence of the medical marijuana industry. However,the black market,low-
grade Mexican marijuana is not significantly present in Fort Collins. Fort Collins has become more
of an exporter of marijuana than an importer.
Councilmember Troxell asked about sales at medical marijuana businesses. Sawyer replied
dispensaries are limited as to amounts they can sell, but have the option to put specific strains or
items on sale.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the progress of state regulations. Schiager replied state
regulations have changed with regard to credentials of physicians prescribing medical marijuana but
the actual numbers of patients has not changed.
Councilmember Troxell asked if staff has received input from the medical community since First
Reading. Sawyer replied in the negative.
228
March 15, 2011
Councilmember asked what constitutes multi-family in terms of where individual users would be
allowed to grow their own plants. Sawyer replied these regulations would include any type of
residence that would share walls with another unit.
Councilmember Troxell asked if CSU would have its own jurisdiction over University-owned
student housing units. Schiager replied the University does not allow medical marijuana growing
in its housing units.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the ability of landlords to restrict growing. Sawyer replied
staff has been able to correct complaints received thus far by notifying landlords who can then not
allow growing.
Councilmember Manvel asked about community input regarding non-compliant existing businesses.
Sawyer replied staff mailed notices to surrounding businesses and schools as identified at First
Reading, encouraging attendance at Council and provided a website address at which comments
could be left. As of this afternoon, only one comment from an administrator at Rocky Mountain
High School had been left.
Councilmember Poppaw asked for input from Councilmembers who visited medical marijuana
businesses. Mayor Hutchinson replied he did not witness any large problems in terms of proximity
to protected facilities. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson agreed with Mayor Hutchinson. Councilmember
Manvel replied the businesses are very nice and discreet, as a whole.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if staff recommends the change made to Ordinance No.019,2011.
Schiager replied the First Reading of the Ordinance included the residential growing restrictions.
Staff opted to remove that restriction and examine complaints while considering potential future
changes.
City Attorney Royclarified cultivation of medical marijuana in duplexes and multi-family dwellings
was prohibited in the First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2011. The motion for adoption on
Second Reading should include an amendment to change that prohibition.
Councilmember Troxell asked whether or not statistics show a significantly higher portion of males
using medical marijuana. Schiager replied the state shows 73%of medical marijuana card holders
are male.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
018, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy supported the elimination of black market marijuana via grandfathering
existing businesses and thanked staff for work on the item.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as there are 23 businesses that do
not meet the separation requirements, and only two that do meet the requirements.
229
March 15, 2011
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for work on the item and for the effort to reach out to
protected businesses and uses. She encouraged medical marijuana businesses to be cognizant of
teenagers in the community.
Councilmember Manvel encouraged Team Fort Collins to work with the medical marijuana industry
as it has with the alcohol industry to keep marijuana away from youth. He stated shutting down
non-compliant centers is anti-business.
Councilmember Poppaw stated some of the centers are too close to vulnerable populations;however,
putting businesses out of business is not desirable.
Mayor Hutchinson stated staff efforts at accommodating state law have carefully considered the
community. .
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
Nays: Poppaw and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
019, 2011, as amended, on Second Reading.
City Attorney Roy clarified the motion would remove the prohibition on cultivation of medical
marijuana in multi-family dwellings.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would support the motion as it will be possible to change
regulations as needed in the future.
Councilmember Manvel agreed this issue is a work in progress but stated he would support the
motion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as the grandfathering has allowed
for many centers throughout town.
Councilmember Manvel noted many patients are unable to afford to purchase medical marijuana and
should be able to grow their own as allowed by law.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy.
Nays: Poppaw and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
020, 2011, on Second Reading.
230
March 15, 2011
Councilmember Kottwtiz noted there are no federal regulations available for medical marijuana and
stated citizens could put forth an initiative to place the prohibition of medical marijuana to a vote.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion as the Ordinance conforms with State
language.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2011-029
Expressing the City Council's Support for the Poudre Fire Authority
Board's Proposed Expenditure of Revenues Derived from the
"Keep Fort Collins Great" Tax Measure, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 11, 2010, Council held a special work session to discuss the most appropriate use of
Keep Fort Collins Great revenues, which included$494,000 for the South Battalion for Poudre Fire
Authority (PFA). At the special work session, Council asked for more information on PFA
priorities. The remaining$1,563,000 of the $2,057,000, or 11%of the City's "Keep Fort Collins
Great"funds designated for fires services was appropriated in the City's Annual Appropriation
Ordinance. This Resolution indicates Council's supportfor PFA's determinations for the use ofthe
"Keep Fort Collins Great" tax revenue.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 25, 2011, a joint Poudre Valley Fire Protection District/Poudre Fire Authority Board
meeting was held to review revenue and priorities. The Boards concluded at that meeting that the
focus of additional finding should be enhancing fire protection and emergency service and that
could best be provided with four person companies or a south squad company at Station 4 (1945
West Drake Road). On February 22, 2011, the PFA Board met and endorsed the four person
engines or companies as the best way to improve PFA's emergency response profile.
The Poudre Valley Fire Protection District Board ofDirectors has determined that the revenue from
its successful property tax initiative be used to implement a four person company at Station 7 in
LaPorte, Colorado. Station 7 is the wildland specialty station and deploys both a brush engine and
a Type III engine when needed, as well as a structural firefighting engine. Station 7 covers one of
the largest areas within PFA and can be on incidents for lengthy periods of time.
231
March 15, 2011
Consequently, the PFA Board recommends that the City's "Keep Fort Collins Great"funds
designated for fire services be expended as shown in the following chart.
City Keep Fort Collins Great Funds Utilization # Personnel
678,000 Round 1 &2 Cuts - 2011 0
South Battalion—included in Ordinance No. 134, 2010,
494,000 4
adopted December 21, 2010
634,000 2, 4-Person Companies—4-person company analysis 6
attached see Attachment 1
30,000 Stations 1-4 Maintenance— This maintenance was 0
withdrawn by the City in the 2010 BFO process.
210,000 Two Attritioned Positions— These are two of three positions 2
attritioned by PFA to meet recessionary pressures in 2010.
11,000 New Hire Equipment— Total cost of equipment for new
firefighters is $377,000. The balance will be paid from 0
$5,000 from the District and the remainder from a
permanent transfer from ongoing capital revenue.
$2,057,000 TOTAL 1 12
The Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, which shares finding of the Authority with the City of
Fort Collins through an Intergovernmental Agreement at a ratio of 20%District,,80%City, also had
a measure on the ballot to increase taxes within the District. This measure was successful, and will
continue the 80120 finding ratio of the Authority. The following table shows how the District has
appropriated its funds to the Authority.
District Election Funds Utilization #Personnel
City of Fort Collins Annexation— The majority of
this property transfer from the District to the City
was caused by the Southwest area enclave
158,009 annexation. The City has included these funds in its 0
contribution to the PFA to offset this reduction in
PFA revenue.
39,741 Reduction in Property Taxes 0
Station 7, Four-Person Company—Implementation
317,000 meets the rationale for this strategy (please see 3
attached four person company analysis).
5,000 New Hire Equipment 0
$519,750 TOTAL 3
In addition to the 15 personnel from the City and District, the PFA will replace one attritioned
firefighterposition;provide technology and equipmentfor newly hiredfirefighters;andinformation
technology programs by utilizing its ongoing capital funds, which brings the total new firefighter
232
March 15, 2011
positions to 16. This is a reduction in new personnel from the original Resourcing Our Future
request of 25.5 positions.
Attachment I provides an explanation of the four-person companies, as well as statistical data on
uniformed personnel per capita, which shows the PFA remaining well below the staffing levels of
the majority offire departments locally, regionally, and nationally.
One of PFA's driving concepts in its vision statement is to be a financially responsible partner in
the community. This statement focuses on our obligation to create an emergency response structure
that provides top-level services at the most cost-effective level possible. The quantifiable
demonstration ofthis commitment can be seen in the charts which show "2009 Uniformed Personnel
Per 1,000 Population Strategic Planning Partners and Front Range Departments"and "Ongoing
Savings to the PFA Community" and "Uniformed Personnel Per 1,000 Per Capita if PFA Were
Equal to Comparison Department. "
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This recommendation, along with the District's election funds, will create 16 jobs to support 16
families in the community. This recommendation will also support the already strong partnership
with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District that contributes$4.46 million to PFA. Without this
revenue, the City would need to replace$2.5 to$3 million to maintain the same level offire, rescue,
and EMS services from which citizens currently benefit. "
Poudre Fire Authority Chief John Mulligan noted this item arose from a December budget meeting.
Meetings have since occurred with both the PFA Board of Directors and the District Board that have
resulted in the PFA budget recommendations. PFA's proposal for 4-person companies is designed
to maximize the ability to remain in assigned station areas to maintain response times.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant,asked if TIF awards may have any detrimental effect on PFA
funding.
Sue Pawlak, 4014 Mesa Verde Street, stated this budget should be passed and recommended by
Council as it is what voters opted to pass as part of ballot measure 2B.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson discussed a memo received by Council on February 24th. He asked about
the structure that makes overtime pay a requirement. Chief Mulligan replied it is more expensive
to have firefighters work 40 hour weeks; 24-hour shifts are very common.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he has consistently asked for an examination of the benefits to
taxpayers of the current system.
Councilmember Manvel asked for a description of the current PFA schedule. Mike Gress,Division
Chief of Operations, Poudre Fire Authority,replied 24-hour shifts begin at 8:00 in the morning and
firefighters who work beginning Monday would work Wednesday and Friday as well,then have off
Saturday through Tuesday and report the next Wednesday for another 24-hour shift. This is one of
233
March 15, 2011
the most common firefighter schedules. Chief Mulligan added the Department of Labor allows an
exclusion for the time and a half requirement for fire service personnel on 24-hour shifts for any
week below 53 hours.
Mayor Pro Tem. Ohlson asked about the discrepancy between the minimum 39 firefighters and an
additional seven which are also on duty. Gress replied 39 is the minimum number of firefighters
needed on duty at any one time to staff each apparatus completely. The seven additional individuals
are used to cover and maintain those 39 minimum positions in cases of vacation, training leave,
illness, or other leaves.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the two and a quarter overtime pay for recalled fire personnel.
Chief Mulligan replied off-duty personnel are recalled typically on third alarm fires in which all on-
duty individuals are already being used. The cost of these recalls is generally about $48,000 per
year and eliminates the need for hiring additional firefighters.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked what overtime pay rate applies to meet minimum staffing needs.
Gress replied the higher overtime rate is paid in less than 4% of situations requiring personnel to
remain on duty.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if PFA still has a 70th percentile pay rate, as the City has eliminated
that. Chief Mulligan replied the 70th percentile is still the PFA policy as the difference between the
median and the 70th percentile is 2.4% due to the compressed pay schedule. PFA has frozen pay
increases for the last two years.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the use of volunteer firefighters to complement the existing
professional staff. Chief Mulligan replied PFA has 30 volunteer firefighters.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the governance model and the Fire District Board. Chief
Mulligan replied the Poudre Fire District is a taxing fire district outside the City which has a five-
member elected board, two of which sit on the PFA Board.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked why the City is sponsoring three four-person stations as opposed to
the Council-recommended two stations. Mayor Hutchinson replied it was a good faith effort by the
PFA Board to be responsive to Council's direction. Councilmember Kottwitz stated the third station
had previously been discussed.
Councilmember Manvel asked about billing for a medical call to which PFA is called, as well as
ambulance service. Chief Mulligan replied the ambulance service will be billed to the patient but
the fire service will not. Councilmember Manvel stated the issue should be considered.
Councilmember Manvel asked about efficiency in writing reports. Gross replied PFA is unable to
provide laptop computer services similar to Police Services. Reports are required to be completed
on computers in the station prior to the end of each shift.
234
March 15, 2011
Councilmember Roy asked for a cost estimate for the total number of calls annually. Chief Mulligan
replied the entire operations budget would be the cost, approximately$16 million.
Councilmember Roy asked about best practices in other communities to reduce the cost allocated
for fire protection. Chief Mulligan replied PFA costs are lower than many other neighboring areas.
Councilmember Roy asked about the geographical limits of firefighters' residences. Chief Mulligan
replied there are no specific limits.
Councilmember Roy asked if PFA works with neighboring communities for cost savings. Chief
Mulligan replied PFA participates in a training consortium with Cheyenne, Laramie, Loveland,
Greeley, Longmont, and Boulder. Automatic aid and mutual aid agreements are also in place with
neighboring communities and PFA receives more aid than it gives.
Councilmember Roy asked how TIF awards affect PFA operations and economics. Chief Mulligan
replied he would provide the information.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the level of downtime and the addition of more people per shift.
Chief Mulligan replied the number of calls has increased and there are pre-plans, education, and
other activities keeping firefighters from too much downtime.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Resolution
2011-029.
Councilmember Manvel stated PFA and its personnel are outstanding and supported the funding
choices.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Chief Mulligan and firefighters who helped work for the passage
of 2B.
Councilmember Roy thanked firefighters who helped work for the passage of 2B.
Councilmember Kottwitz discussed the high level of integrity of PFA and asked about the time
commitment, training costs, and recruitment for volunteer firefighters. She expressed interest in
having discussions about ambulance and fire service charges and noted this proposal has changed
over time.
Councilmember Troxell supported PFA and its personnel.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson thanked firefighters for working for the passage of 2B but stated he
continues to have questions relating to staffing.
Mayor Hutchinson discussed his service on the PFA Board and noted PFA fully participates in the
Budgeting for Outcomes process. He supported PFA and its personnel.
235
March 15, 2011
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Manvel discussed current development requirements and noted the current system
does not take into account the history of the developer when considering variances. He proposed
asking staff to examine the feasibility of allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to consider
developer history when considering variances. Mayor Hutchinson and other Councilmembers
agreed the information would be helpful.
Councilmember Roy requested staff examine statewide efforts to aid Japan in its current tragedies.
April 5 Council Meeting Cancelled
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, as authorized under
Section 2-28 of the City Code, that the City Council meeting that is scheduled for April 5,2011,be
cancelled by the Council since that is also the night of the regular City election. Yeas: Hutchinson,
Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Special Meeting Called
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, as permitted by Section
2-29(A) of the City Code, that the City Council call a special Council meeting to be held at 6:00
p.m. on Tuesday,April 12,2011,in these same chambers at 300 LaPorte Avenue, at which the first
order of business of such meeting will be the administration of the oath of office to the Mayor and
Councilmembers who are elected at the April 5 regular City election. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz,
Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adjourn to March
22,2011,to be reconvened in these chambers at the conclusion of the City Council work session that
is scheduled to occur at 6:00 p.m. on that date. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
236
March 15, 2011
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
237
March 22, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 22,
2011, at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Resolution 2011-030
Supporting the Passage of a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance Amending
People's Ordinance No. 2, 1975 Pertaining to Construction in Library Park, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Expand Our Library Committee gathered sufficient petition signatures to place a citizens
initiative on the April 5, 2011 municipal ballot to modify a 1975 ordinance that limits the footprint
of buildings in Library Park to 5% of the total park area. The modified ordinance would require
that 85%of Library Park remain as open space with up to 15%allowed for buildings, including the
historic cabins and driveway/parking that have been added since 1975. Project plans include an
interior remodel and a 6,000 square foot expansion that will be accomplished by building down
from the library's second floor overhangs.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Main Library building, constructed in 1976, is a 34,000 square foot structure that the
community has outgrown. More square footage is required to meet the needs of a larger population
and collection. The remodel and expansion project also addresses the facility's need for
modernization.
The 35 year old building has undergone only minor refurbishing since its original construction. The
remodel will include state-of-the-art technology, easier access to materials and redesigned space
including a multi-use meeting room, expanded children's area, group and individual study rooms
and a cyber cafe with vending machines.
What changes will be made to the original building?
The exterior design is congruous with the original building style which emphasizes horizontal and
vertical lines. The newfirst floor walls below the second floor overhangs will be built with masonry
238
March 22, 2011
and light-colored glass. The windows will bring more light into the interior and allow better views
of the surrounding park.
What changes will be made to Library Park?
The history, value and local pride associated with Library Park will be preserved. There will be
strategic enhancements to the exterior walkways and landscape. The majority of existing trees will
be retained. Shrub and perennial beds located along the east and south sides of the building will be
renewed and enhanced after the construction is completed.
FINANCL9L/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Poudre River Public Library District will use existing funds to pay for the remodel and
expansion. The District has set aside funds for this purpose and will not need additional money
from taxpayers to accomplish the project. The project budget for the expansion and remodel of the
Main Library is $4.2 million.
A revitalized Main Library will bolster its role as a community center and destination place for
downtown Fort Collins and beyond. The project will enable the library to bring community
members together with expanded programming space, to better meet the increasingly diverse needs
of customers and to contribute to the cultural and economic vibrancy of Fort Collins.
Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager, stated this Resolution supports a citizen initiative for a
modest expansion and update to the existing downtown library. Funds for this purpose have already
been set aside and the library will be a net zero energy consumption facility.
Michael Liggett, Poudre River Library District Board of Trustees President, encouraged support of
the Resolution.
Thomas Edwards, 1101 South Bryan, supported the Resolution and library expansion.
Councilmember Roy asked how the Fort Collins libraries will be successful moving into the future.
Holly Carroll,Library Executive Director,replied the libraries continue to grow in terms of use,both
traditionally and virtually.
Councilmember Roy asked if the success of Fort Collins libraries is consistent with other libraries
nationwide. Carroll replied use of Fort Collins' libraries is exceptional, though the economy has
increased library use nationwide.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the net zero status. Carroll replied LEED certification was
explored but it was determined net zero energy would be the best use of resources. The same
amount of energy will be used with the new, larger building as with the old building.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the building has any historical significance. Carroll replied the
look of the library will be preserved with the inclusion of more natural light.
239
March 22, 2011
Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Resolution
2011-030. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2011-031
Expressing the City Council's Support for Proposed
Charter Amendment No. 1 on the April 5, 2011, Ballot, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Charter Amendment No. I on the April S, 2011, ballot for the regular City election would change
the way in which the boundaries of City's electoral districts are established by using the total
population in each district rather than the number ofregistered electors. This Resolution expresses
the City Council's support for that proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Historically, the City has based the determination of Council districts on the number of registered
voters. This has been, in part, due to the ease in obtaining voter registration numbers vs. the
difficulty in determining total population between census years.
The Courts have held that a constitutionally sound redistricting, regardless of the method used,
should result in only minimal deviation in total population from one district to another.
During the redistricting process in the fall of 2010, discussions ensued about whether it would be
administratively feasible to change Council districts on the basis of total population rather than the
number of registered electors. The City Clerk's office has determined that it is administratively
feasible to do so due to advances in technology that allow for total population to be calculated more
efficiently and accurately.
If this Charter amendment is approved by the voters on April S, staff will bring an ordinance to
Council to amend Chapter 7 of the City Code, Section 7-87 to provide that:
1. Not less than one year after the official decennial publication of the U.S. Census concerning
the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City
Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure, to the extent reasonably
possible, that there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and
the least populous District.
2. Not more than once every five years after making the determination required under
subsection (1)above, the City Clerk shall again review the district boundaries to determine
if the maximum deviation between the mostpopulous and the least populous district exceeds
240
March 22, 2011
ten (10) percent, and if so, shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary
changes necessary to ensure that each district contains, as nearly as reasonably possible,
an equal number of inhabitants.
3. Any changes to district boundaries shall be established by ordinance no less than one
hundred and twenty (120)days before a regular municipal election. (This time period may
need to be adjusted if, at the April 5, 2011 election, voters approve the implementation of
ranked choice voting.)
Questions have been raised by some members of the community as to the reason why the proposed
Charter amendment is being presented to the electors of the City for their consideration. Because
of the importance of the proposed measure, City staff is recommending that the Council adopt this
Resolution explaining the reasons behind the amendment and expressing the Council's supportfor
the measure".
City Attorney Roy stated the Charter Amendment would change the formula used for Council
redistricting and would be based on total population rather than the number of registered electors.
Councilmember Troxell asked how closely district boundaries align with the proposed system versus
the existing system. City Clerk Krajicek replied a preliminary examination has found the changes
to be very minor.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-031.
Councilmember Manvel supported the motion as Council representation should include the entire
population.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal of the Decision by Hearing Officer on
January 25, 2011, Regarding the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, and
Project Development Plan, Hearing Officer Decision Stands
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 12, 2011, a public hearing was held to consider the project referred to as 431 East
Laurel Street, Replat and Project Development Plan, #30-10. The Hearing Officer considered
testimony from the applicant,public and staff. On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officer approved
the project, subject to four conditions. On February 9, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by
241
March 22, 2011
the City Clerk's Office. On February 11, 2011, the City Clerk's Office notified the appellants that
the Appeal contained certain deficiencies. On March 1, 2011, the appellants filed an Amended
Notice of Appeal.
The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The project is a request to replat one existing lot, addressed as 431 East Laurel Street and
containing 9,004 square feet, into two lots. Lot One would include the existing house (duplex) that
fronts onto East Laurel Street and contain 5,004 square feet. Lot Two would be a vacant lot that
would front onto Whedbee Street and contain 4,000 square feet. The existing east-west alley would
form the south property line of proposed Lot Two.
The applicant is requesting two Modifications of Standard. The first would allow Lot Two to
contain 4,000 square feet versus the minimum required lot size of 5,000 square feet. The second
would allow Lot One, which contains the existing duplex, to provide zero off-street parking spaces
versus the minimum required four spaces. The site is located at the southwest corner of East Laurel
Street and Whedbee Street and zoned N-C-M,Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. Since
the project was submitted and at the request of the City's Technical Services Department, the name
of the plat has been changed to the Rollins Subdivision.
The request to subdivide 431 East Laurel Street represents the first phase of a project to ultimately
construct a single family detached dwelling on a newly created lot. A Contextual Setback is
proposed for the front yard along Whedbee Street. Conditions of approval are recommended in
association with these requests. A final condition of approval relates to providing sufficient
documents at Final Compliance in order for the project to proceed to the next step.
The Current Planning Department recommended approval of the P.D.P. and Request for Two
Modifications of Standard, subject to four conditions.
Action of the Hearing Officer
On January 25, 2011, the Hearing Officer approved 431 East Laurel Street Replat, Project
Development Plan, #30-10, subject to the following conditions:
1. In order to mitigate concerns related to height, mass, bulk and scale, the Request for
Modification of Standard to allow a 4,000 square foot lot is approved subject to the
condition that the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio be reduced from the allowable
0.50 to 0.40.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot Two, at least two off-street parking spaces
shall be provided on Lot One, and that such parking be screened from view from 425 East
242
March 22, 2011
Laurel Street by a solid wood, six-foot high fence, or by any screening device considered
sufficient and mutually agreed upon by the owners of 425 and 431 East Laurel Street.
3. The front setbackfor Lot Two shall be no closer to the front property line than 10.65 feet in
order to match the front setback of the main portion of the existing church located to the
south across the east-west alley at 717 Whedbee Street.
4. At the time of submittal for Final Compliance Plan, a site plan shall be submitted that
graphically illustrates and states in notation form the design parameters of the
recommended conditions of approval and any further conditions that may be found to be
appropriate the Hearing Officer.
Questions Council Needs to Answer
1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant laws?
2. Did the Hearing Officer fail to hold a fair hearing?
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
1. Appellants'Allegation (1) —Lot Two—4,000 Square Feet
The appellants state the granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to allow a 4,000 square
foot lot is detrimental to the public good and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Code.
Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code.
Staff Response
During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence: (1)Planning Department
StaffReport;(2)application,plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant
to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) public testimony during the hearing by 29 speakers;
approximately forty (40) members of the public were present. The Land Use Code, the City's
Comprehensive Plan(City Plan)and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered
Part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer considered the evidence presented by the applicant describing the context of
the neighborhood (defined as the subject Block 157 and the surrounding eight blocks - see
Attachment 4) that includes a significant number ofsubdivided corner lots. For example, the lot
directly across the street to the east contains a house on 3,600 square feet. In addition, the other
three legs of the Whedbee Street/East Laurel Street intersection already contain sub-divided corner
lots.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the platting of one additional lot, at 4,000 square feet, would
not be detrimental to the public good. In order to mitigate concerns regarding the sire of the future
243
March 22, 2011
house, the Hearing Officer conditioned the approval of the Modification such that the house would
be held to a maximum floor-to-area ratio of 0.40 versus the allowable 0.50 (including garage).
2. Appellants'Allegation (2)-Lot One-Number of Parking Spaces
The appellants state that granting of the Modification by the Hearing Officer to reduce the number
of parking spaces for Lot One from four to two was contrary to the requirements of the Land Use
Code. Therefore, the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code.
Staff Response
The Hearing Officer inspected the site and the surrounding area and determined that two off-street
spaces and two on-street spaces represented a fair and reasonable compromise. There is a fire
hydrant and bus stop along the street frontage of the subject lot. Still,for the duplex(Lot One)there
remains 50 feet of street frontage along East Laurel Street. For Lot Two, the bits stop is not
protected by signage or red curbing and there is sufficient area for two on-street parking spaces.
The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of both on-street and off-street parking. The purpose
of the standard is to not create unnecessary competition for on-street parking. While it is not
explicitly stated in the Land Use Code or City Code, there is an implicit expectation in
neighborhoods that one can park a car on the street in front of one's house. The Modification
granted by the Hearing Officer, and conditioned to require two parking spaces on the property,
preserves this expectation for the neighborhood. Two on-street parking spaces, distributed along
two street frontages, is a normal practice and commonly accepted. Therefore, the Hearing Officer
did not fail to properly interpret the Land Use Code the granting of the Modification is not
detrimental to the public good.
3. Appellants'Allegation (3)-Lot Two- Contextual Front Setback
The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer committed an error in failing to apply the standards
for the contextual front setback as required by the Land Use Code. Contextual front setbacks are
to be evaluated within the surrounding residential neighborhood, not simply as compared to an
adjacent non-residential structure.
Staff Response
The standard is clear. The standard states in two separate clauses, the following:
"A "contextual".front setback may fall at any point between the front setback
required in the zone district and the front setback that exists on a lot that abuts, and
is oriented to, the same street as the subject lot. "
If the subject lot is a corner lot, the "contextual" setback may fall at any point
between the zone district required front setback and the front setback that exists on
the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. "
244
March 22, 2011
The standard explains how to determine the context. It is precisely twice stated that the context is
the abutting lot that is oriented to the same street. In the case of 431 East Laurel Street Lot Two,
there is only one abutting lot that is oriented to Whedbee Street, which is the church. The context
is not the surrounding residential neighborhood.
The Hearing Officer correctly evaluated the request for a contextual front setback and established
that the setback shall match the church. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly
interpret the Land Use Code.
4. Appellants'Allegation (4) —Lot Two— Contextual Front Setback
The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to admit relevant evidence regarding the
generally accepted definition ofcontextual setbacks,specifically a letter outlining the issue from the
Colorado Historical Society.
Staff Response
The Hearing Officer did not fail to admit evidence. In fact, the Hearing Officer did indeed accept
into the record correspondence from Mr. Roger Reed (Attachment 7). This correspondence
consisted of a fax cover sheet followed by two photo copied pages from a document titled "The
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties". Page one is title
page and page two is a list of recommended and not recommended practices titled "Design for the
Replacement of Missing Historic Features. "
Historic preservation standards are found in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Article Three of
the Land Use Code contains general provisions that are applicable on a citywide basis and not zone
specific. Section 3.1.1 is the applicability statementfor Article Three and explicitly exempts single
family dwellings from the purview of Article Three when such homes are permitted as an allowable
use subject Basic Development Review per Article Four N-C-Mzoning. For example, a new single
family detached dwelling was constructed at 805 Smith Street and was not subjected to historic
preservation review. Further, there have been numerous additions and garages constructed in the
neighborhood that have not be so reviewed. Such would also be the case with the future review of
a new house on Lot Two of 431 East Laurel Street Subdivision.
The Hearing Officer considered both the written(attached)and verbal testimony of the City of Fort
Collins Historic Preservation Planner. The written testimony states:
"There is no requirement in the Land Use Code requiring Historic Preservation
review of the subdivision of land or setbacks. "
Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to admit relevant evidence and did not fail to conduct a
fair hearing with regard to the evaluation, decision and condition of approval of the front setback
along Whedbee Street.
245
March 22, 2011
5. Appellants'Allegation (5) —Deed Restriction
The appellants state that the Hearing Officer failed to require, as part of his approval of the
Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, a deed restriction that would mandate only one
residential unit, versus a duplex, on Lot Two.
Staff Response
It is not clear what is being alleged. There is no reference to either a failure to interpret and apply
a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to conduct a fair hearing.
Generally speaking, land use regulation and zoning enforcement are based on the various codes as
specifically adopted by the City Council by Ordinance. In order to meet the objectives of rational
land use regulatory system, City Council relies upon the various adopted codes and not on deed
restrictions. If there is a valid public purpose to a regulation, then it is found in an Ordinance and
applied equally across the entire City. Applying deed restrictions to individualproperties on a case-
by-case basis has never been the practice of the City of Fort Collins.
As to the allegation, there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to interpret
and apply a relevant code provision and did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
6. Appellants'Allegation (6) -Petition
The Hearing Officer failed to properly consider the opposition of over 100 residents of the
surrounding neighborhood who signed a petition opposing the Modification requests of the
applicant.
Staff Response
There is no evidence in the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly consider
opposition to the Requests for Modification. In fact, the Hearing Officer's decision includes a
detailed discussion of each Modification.
For example,for the Modification pertaining to minimum lot size, the Hearing Officer added a
condition of approval that the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio shall be reduced from 0.50
to 0.40. Similarly,for the Modification pertaining to the number of off-street parking spaces, the
Hearing Officer denied the request to provide zero spaces. Instead, the Hearing Officer required
the provision of two spaces and further conditioned that such spaces be adequately screened. These
two conditions are evidence that the Hearing Officer did in fact consider testimony opposing the two
Modifications.
Further, the Hearing Officer accepted into the record the petition and considered the public
testimony of 29 speakers. Therefore, the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing with
regard to considering opposition to the two Requests for Modification.
246
March 22, 2011
7. Appellants'Allegation (7) — City Plan and Sub-Area Plan
The appellants allege that decision of the Hearing Officer is contrary to Council policies contained
in (a) City Plan 2004 and(b) in the East Side Neighborhood Plan adopted in 1986.
(a) City Plan:
• "New buildings in existing neighborhoods will be designed to incorporate or
improve upon essential positive qualities for residents, such as proportion and
shape, pattern of buildings and yards, orientation to the street, and building
materials and styles. " (p. 31)
• "The character of stable residential neighborhoods should be preserved through
neighborhood planning, assistance to neighborhood organizations, and supportive
regulatory techniques. " (p. 117)
• "...The City will follow specific design standards for infill development and
redevelopment with an emphasis in protecting existing residential neighborhood
character. " (p. 163-4)
Staff Response
City Plan recognizes the value of stable residential neighborhoods. The N-C-Mzone district was
established to implement the City Plan and these policies are manifested in the form of permitted
uses and development standards.
With regard to the policies citied by the appellants, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that
a new house on Lot Two, especially as conditioned by the Hearing Officer not to exceed 0.40 floor-
to-area ratio(including garage), would not be designed to comply with the proportion,shape,street
orientation as found in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant offered, by way of example,
numerous corner lots that have been similarly divided such that the new lot is 4,000 square feet or
less. No evidence is offered indicating that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
(b) East Side Neighborhood Plan
• "Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural
style of its immediate surroundings. " (p. 20)
• "A change of use may be deemed appropriate if it conforms to the surrounding
neighborhood character, including, but not limited to: scale; mass; building
separation;buildingplacement;building height;finish materials;and architectural
style... " (p. 23)
247
March 22, 2011
• "The preservation and enhancement of the existing housing stock in these areas is
a key element of this Plan. All other policies affecting the East Side Neighborhood
should be evaluated as to their impacts on the stability of the existing residential
areas designated for Neighborhood Preservation. " (p. 23)
• "Property owners doing major additions, remodeling, or new construction should
be encouraged to take care that the resulting exterior treatment (scale, mass,
building height, and material(s) and architectural style is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. " (p. 35)
Staff Response
There is no evidence to suggest that a new house on Lot Two would not respect the character and
architectural style of the neighborhood. The request to divide the existing lot is not a change of use.
Neighborhood stability is more typically impacted by rezonings or changes of use, not the addition
of a single family detached house. The applicant presented into the record an example of the type
of house contemplated for Lot Two. This example, while illustrative only, indicates that the
applicant has been encouraged to take care that exterior treatment(scale, mass, building height and
materials)would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, no evidence is offered
indicating that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code.
8. Appellants'Allegation (8) —Potential Conversion to Four-Plex
The appellants allege that the subject property received preferential treatment over the past years
with regard to conversion to a duplex. And,potentially, this 9,000 square foot lot could, ultimately,
contain up to four units.
Staff Response
With regard to the conversion of the existing house into a duplex, the Hearing Officer never
indicated that such conversion factored into his decision. There is no specific allegation or
reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the
relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in the
consideration of 431 East Laurel Project Development Plan #30-10.
With regard to the potential of a duplex being constructed on Lot Two, such a request would be
required to comply with all pertinent standards of the Land Use Code, as would any of the other
permitted uses allowed in the N-C-M zone as part of a Basic Development Review. The list of
allowable uses is stated in Section 4.8(B) of the Land Use Code and not at issue.
9. Appellants'Allegation (9)—Setting a Precedent
The appellants allege that this is a precedent—setting issue and that if upheld, the decision of the
Hearing Officer could open up potentially hundreds of corner lots in the East Side and West Side
248
March 22, 2011
neighborhoods to similar minor subdivisions and conversions contrary to established City policies
and plans.
Staff Response
With regard to the potential of setting a precedent for future land divisions, there is no specific
allegation or reference to the public record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and
apply the relevant Code provisions, or whether the Hearing Officerfailed to conduct a fair hearing.
As with any future Request for Modification, evaluation and consideration would be required to be
on the individual merits based on the specific criteria stated in Section 2.8.2(H).
10. Appellants'Allegation (10) — Code Interpretation
The appellants allege that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the Code.
Staff Response
The appellants do not list any specific Code provisions that the Hearing Officer failed to properly
interpret and apply. There is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,
11. Appellants'Allegation (11)—Fair Hearing
The appellants allege that the Hearing Off cer failed to conduct a fair hearing.
Staff Response
The appellants do not list any specific examples of how the Hearing Off cer failed to conduct a fair
hearing. There is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair
hearing.
12. Appellants'Allegation (12)— Conflict of Interest
The appellants allege that the City staffplanner involved in the subject application did not disclose
a potential conflict of interest — the ownership of a similar lot which could be benefitted by a
favorable outcome.
Staff Response
Again, it is not clear what is being alleged. There is no specific allegation that the Hearing Officer
either failed to interpret and apply a relevant Code provision or whether there was a failure to
conduct a fair hearing.
Any allegation of a staff conflict of interest should have been fled with the City Clerk or City
Attorney's Office as such an allegation would not be covered by the Land Use Code and therefore,
249
March 22, 2011
should not be included as part of Appeal of the record of public hearing for P.D.P. Further, no
evidence is offered supporting the allegation.
As to the claim, the staffplanner owns a corner lot. This lot, however, is zoned L-M-N,Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood which contains significantly different land use regulations than the N-C-
M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density. For example, the L-M-Nzone does not contain
any regulations as to minimum lot size or maximum floor-to-area ratio. The claim is found to be
unrelated to 431 East Laurel Street P.D.P., not supported by the record and totally without merit. "
City Attorney Roy discussed the appeal process and Council's role in the appeal. He noted there
is not a verbatim transcript of the original hearing, but detailed minutes have been provided.
Councilmember Manvel withdrew from the discussion of the Consideration of the Appeal of the
Decision by Hearing Officer on January 25, 2011,Regarding the 431 East Laurel Street Replat, and
Project Development Plan due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if a campaign contribution made by one of the arguing attorneys to
a Councilmember constitutes a conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy replied a Councilmember
should not participate in a decision if he or she has a financial or personal interest in the outcome.
The campaign contribution does not hinge upon the outcome of the hearing but the
Councilmember's objectivity should not be affected. A court would likely not be persuaded that a
monetary campaign contribution would induce a Councilmember to be biased but the parties-in-
interest should be given a chance to object to participation by that Councilmember.
Mayor Hutchinson asked the appellants and opponents to speak to the sufficiency of the hearing
minutes and the campaign contribution issue.
Tim Dow, appellants' attorney, did not object to the participation of the Councilmember receiving
the campaign contribution and stated the City Ordinance requires a transcript of the hearing rather
than a summary. The summary failed to mention a few items which will be discussed further.
Lucia Liley, applicants' attorney,did not object to the summary minutes or to the inclusion of other
information from the hearing deemed omitted by the appellants. She stated she had not made a
campaign contribution.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated Mr. Dow contributed to Councilmember Troxell's campaign. Ms.
Liley did not object to Councilmember Troxell's participation in the proceedings.
City Attorney Roy asked if Mr. Dow would be offering written or oral evidence to supplement the
hearing minutes. Mr. Dow replied he would be offering oral evidence in summary fashion from
Steve Mack, appellant.
City Attorney Roy asked if Ms. Liley would object to supplementing the record with the oral
evidence. Ms. Liley stated she would not object, assuming the evidence was originally presented
at the hearing.
250
March 22, 2011
Mayor Hutchinson asked the appellants to submit their clarifications.
Steve Mack, 420 East Laurel, appellant, offered information regarding omissions from the hearing
summary minutes. He stated Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, has a potential conflict of interest as he
owns a corner lot in the area and has the potential to benefit from the outcome. There was no
mention in the summary of the contextual setback argument and the differences between the existing
Code and the accepted definition from a historical perspective. A letter from the Colorado Historical
Society was not allowed into evidence at the original hearing. Mack stated he discussed a
conversation with Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, regarding the original granting of duplex
status to 431 East Laurel. Because the applicant is applying for a Subdivision, the granting of that
status is re-set. Mack stated he requested the Hearing Officer place a deed restriction preventing the
new structure from being converted to a duplex as this decision is precedent-setting. Also omitted
was a chart completed by Lisa Demberg, appellant, summarizing the floor area ratios of existing
corner lots. Mack stated he would like the aforementioned chart as well as the letter from the
Colorado Historical Society accepted into evidence. The chart was offered to the Hearing Officer
and the letter was verbally discussed, though not physically submitted.
Ms. Liley stated she objected to the Colorado Historical Society letter as it was not submitted at the
hearing.
Mr. Dow stated the letter should have been received by the Hearing Officer and was accurately
verbally summarized by Mr. Mack at the hearing.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the letter would not be allowed into evidence.
City Attorney Roy stated the Colorado Historical Society letter would be preserved as appellants'
Exhibit A for any potential court appeal.
Mr. Dow stated one other item was submitted at the hearing but was not included in the Council
packet. Lisa Demberg, 425 East Laurel, submitted a chart containing information on corner lot
subdivisions and corresponding floor area ratios.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the chart, if it was physically submitted,was not returned to the
Current Planning Department upon learning of the appeal. Shepard stated the data was referenced
but he did not recall the actual chart being submitted.
Ms. Liley stated her clients do recall the discussion and a document but were unsure if it was
submitted. However, they have no objection to submitting the document into the record.
Shepard gave the staff presentation and discussed the original application.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he visited the site with Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmember
Troxell.
Councilmember Troxell discussed the value of the site visit and the possible undergrounding of
utilities and removal of a tree.
251
March 22, 2011
Appellant Presentation
Mr. Dow, appellants' attorney, stated the appellants are requesting the Land Use Code be enforced
and no variance be allowed as exceptional physical conditions are not grounds for a variance. He
stated the Hearing Officer's decision to grant the variance appeared to be arbitrary. The only
subdivision occurring in the area since the 1950's was the subdivision of one lot into two to separate
two existing dwellings onto two lots; therefore, this will be a precedent-setting decision.
Ms. Liley objected to an appellants' exhibit referencing corner lots.
Mayor Hutchinson disallowed the appellants' exhibit.
Mr. Dow stated a petition signed by over 100 area residents in opposition has been submitted.
Mr. Mack stated an error exists in the Staff Report and Hearing Officer's Facts and Findings
identifying two dwellings as single-family residences when,in fact,they are both undeclared duplex
units;therefore the correct density is not reflected. He expressed concern the applicant has received
preferential treatment and asked that the subdivision be denied, or at least deed restricted to keep
the new dwelling from being a duplex. Mr. Mack stated he had a discussion with Clark Mapes in
Advance Planning regarding the existing duplex and Mr. Mapes expressed surprise the duplex was
allowed.
City Attorney Roy noted it is not within his purview to raise objections should new evidence be
introduced; the opposing side must make those objections.
Mayor Hutchinson asked that Council disregard the evidence relating to Mr. Mack's conversation
with Mapes.
Ms. Demberg read a letter from Terry Opgenorth, co-appellant, opposing the subdivision.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Liley, applicant/owner attorney, expressed concern regarding defects found in the Notice of
Appeal filed by the appellants. The Hearing Officer found the plan,as submitted,would not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code, except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. A substantial number of the corner
lots within 8 blocks of this property have been subdivided and have two dwellings on them. The
Hearing Officer stipulated the creation of one off-street parking space for the new dwelling as well
as the addition of two new off-street parking spaces for the existing duplex.
Dave Dunn,property owner at 503 Mathews, supported the applicant and the property subdivision.
Troy Jones,2826 Sitting Bull Way, supported the applicant and the property subdivision and stated
the notice of appeal did not include significant support for its arguments.
252
March 22, 2011
Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel, supported the applicant and the property subdivision as this project
supports the idea of infill and quality redevelopment.
Jeff Down, 519 Locust Street, supported the applicant and the property subdivision.
Richard Taranow, 1200 South College, supported the applicant and the property subdivision.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Dow requested he be able to make an offer of proof of appellants' exhibits A through G. City
Attorney Roy replied those documents will be held in the event of a court appeal and it is the
Mayor's prerogative as to whether or not to receive those exhibits as they were deemed by the City
Attorney's Office to not fall within the requirements of new evidence.
Mayor Hutchinson disallowed the exhibits as part of evidence.
Mr. Dow asked for a show of hands of audience members in support of the appeal. He requested
Council enforce the Land Use Code and deny the subdivision.
Jean Foley, 717 Peterson, asked why the burden of proof regarding lot size appears to be falling to
opponents of the subdivision rather than falling to the applicants to prove how a 4,000 square foot
lot size improves the neighborhood.
Chris Head, 631 Whedbee, objected to the subdivision and asked for Council support of existing
residents.
Barbara Liebler, 710 Mathews, objected to the subdivision.
Dana Hoag, 415 Laurel, objected to the subdivision and asked if a 4,000 square foot lot meets the
neighborhood purpose of a 5,000 square foot lot. He stated most of the attendees at the hearing were
opposed to the subdivision.
Kevin Colby, 715 Smith, objected to the subdivision.
Eric Hermann, 722 Whedbee, objected to the subdivision.
Applicant Rebuttal
Ruth Rollins, applicant, discussed nearby properties and the proposal, noting some nearby lots are
roughly 4,000 square feet. She stated the dwelling will be in character with the neighborhood.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Roy asked why this application was heard before a Hearing Officer rather than the
Planning and Zoning Board. Shepard replied this is a Type I review, a permitted use in the zone
district subject to administrative review.
253
March 22, 2011
Mayor Hutchinson asked if Council should consider the appellant's claim that preferential treatment
has been granted to the applicants. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, replied the issue is not
relevant.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the 10-foot versus 15-foot setback for the proposed dwelling.
Shepard replied the 15-foot setback is the requirement for the zone, however, the 10-foot setback
is contextual based on the structures on the block face.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated modifications should be rare and occur only under special
circumstances and asked for a justification for the hardship basis of the modification. Shepard
replied the justification for the modification was not hardship, but rather the nominal and
inconsequential justification, in Section 2.8.2(H), which is one of four justifications.
Councilmember Roy asked how negative impacts could be deemed inconsequential. Shepard
replied staff examined the neighborhood and found, within 9 blocks of the site, 24 of the 36 corner
lots had been divided.
Councilmember Roy asked how many of those 24 had been subdivided prior to the Land Use Code
being in place. Shepard replied he was unsure, but the Gallaghan Subdivision, at the southeast
corner of Laurel and Peterson, was done recently.
Councilmember Roy stated determining if the Land Use Code has been followed is more important
than matching existing character when the Land Use Code was not in place when most of the
subdivisions occurred.
Mayor Hutchinson asked how Council should consider neighborhood character. Dush replied the
lot is part of the Laurel School historic area but the request is for a modification,of which only one
of four findings is necessary for approval.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for an explanation of the difference between a variance and a modification
of standard. Eckman replied the Land Use Code provides for modifications of standard under the
planning process and a variance under the Zoning Board of Appeals process. The standards are
similar for both.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about other corner lots with two dwellings that are not split into two
lots. Dush replied there may be non-conforming units, or unidentified dwelling units, staff is
unaware of. Shepard replied there are a few lots that have more than one address on an undivided
lot.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the appellants' arguments from a City Plan perspective rather
than a Land Use Code perspective. Eckman replied City Plan and subarea plans are part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, out of which come regulations. The Land Use Code is the governing
document regarding regulations; City Plan is not a regulatory document.
254
March 22, 2011
Mayor Hutchinson asked what consideration should be given to petitions. Eckman replied petitions
are demonstrations of support for both sides; however,this is a decision for Council to make based
upon Land Use Code criteria.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson,to remand the item back
to the Hearing Officer for failure to conduct a fair hearing by failing to receive all relevant evidence.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for additional information. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson replied there
appeared to be evidence not accepted into the record.
Councilmember Troxell asked what materials specifically were withheld.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked Ms. Demberg to respond. Ms.Demberg replied she prepared a chart
which she entered into the conversation with, and presented to,the Hearing Officer. That chart was
not in the materials returned by the Hearing Officer so it is unclear whether or not it was considered.
Ms. Liley stated the applicants have already stated they do not object to the chart being entered into
evidence.
Councilmember Roy asked how a summary report is vetted in comparison to a verbatim transcript.
City Attorney Roy replied each party was given the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the
summary report and Council should base its decision on whether or not the hearing was fair based
upon the information it has.
Councilmember Roy asked who was responsible for compiling the summary report. Shepard replied
he took notes at the public hearing and subsequently transcribed them.
Councilmember Roy and Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, that the Hearing
Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
City Attorney Roy clarified the issue may only be remanded only if Council identifies a particular
issue not fully explored. Otherwise, Council should either overturn or modify the decision.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to overturn the decision
of the Hearing Officer for failure to properly interpret the Land Use Code due to his finding
regarding Section 4.8(D)(1) that decreasing the lot size is nominal and inconsequential.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated modifications to the Code should be rare and use for obvious reasons.
Councilmember Roy noted none of the requested modifications are included in either the applicable
sub-area plan or the Land Use Code and it is not inconsequential to ignore those pre-determined
goals and standards.
255
March 22, 2011
Councilmember Troxell stated the nominal and inconsequential argument was not presented by the
appellants and staff found this modification to be well within the standards of the Land Use Code.
Mayor Hutchinson noted it is proper to consider the neighborhood when making a decision.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson,
Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS AND THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
STANDS.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Hutchinson, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Green Building Program, Adopted on Second Readin
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article 11, Division 2,
of the City Code for the Purpose of Amending the 2009 International Building Code as
adopted.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2,
of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Energy Conservation
Code as Adopted.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2,
of the City Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Residential Code as
Adopted.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV, of the City
Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Mechanical Code as Adopted.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV, of the City
Code for the Purpose ofAmending the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code as Adopted.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2011, Amending Chapter 5, Article V of the City
Code for the Purpose of Repealing the Uniform Plumbing Code and Adopting a Local
Amendment to the Colorado Plumbing Code to Establish Water Flow Rate Restrictions on
Certain Fixtures.
256
March 22, 2011
Implementation of the Fort Collins Green Building Program has the primary goal of better aligning
the built environment with community goals of reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy use and
reduced water use. The Green Building Program framework is designed to support market
transformation through a combination of regulatory and voluntary elements. These Ordinances,
adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-2(Nays:Kottwitz, Troxell)incorporate a package of"green
amendments"into the Fort Collins Building Code. Theproposed amendments address opportunities
with regard to resource efficiency, energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor and outdoor
environmental quality, and buildings operation and maintenance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
A number of minor changes have been made in the Ordinances considered on First Reading, based
on ongoing review by staff and are intended to consolidate and clarify areas ofpotential confusion.
The key substantive changes are as follows:
• Improve consistency between parallel Codes that address different types of buildings. For
example, the commissioning requirement for heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems
included in the International Residential Code(applicable to single-family detached homes,
duplexes and townhouses) was added to the International Mechanical Code (applicable to
multifamily residential buildings)so there is internal consistency across the different codes.
• Clarify applicability ofparticular amendments to existing buildings. In some instances the
First Reading language was unclear as to whether the proposed amendments were intended
to apply in a limited manner or not at all to building alterations or additions to existing
buildings. The Ordinance language has been modified to make this distinction clear, in a
manner consistent with the description of the changes that had been provided by staff.
Additional Information
In response to questions from Council during the First Reading of the proposed ordinances, staff
is providing additional information:
• Residential green building practices considered but not included in the proposed green
amendments. A complete list is included as Attachment 2.
• Funding for implementation support The budget needsfor development ofsupportmaterials
and training have been roughly estimated at $100,000. These implementation support
activities will primarily take place during 2011, prior to the proposed January 1, 2012
effective date for most of the amendments. Funds to cover this are available through the
Utilities 2011 Energy Services budget. Additional training will be offered in subsequent
years,funded through the Utilities Energy Services budget. Resource needs for ongoing
training are expected be significantly lower than in 2011.
• Fundin; for enforcement. The increased budget needs for enforcement of the proposed
amendments have been estimated at$158,000 annually for an additional staffing of 1.5 fiill-
time-equivalent positions in the Building Department. Council recently allocated funding
257
March 22, 2011
from Keep Fort Collins Great revenues to cover this increased need for 2011 and 2012 so
building permit fees will not increase as a result of the green amendments.
• Baseline data. A variety of data regarding Fort Collins design and construction practices
were used to develop the proposed green amendments. Data sources included the following:
o Technical Review Advisory Committee (TRAQ members. The residential and
commercial TRAC included numerous individuals active in building design,
construction and code enforcement. Their experience with current design and
construction practices was part of discussions around the development of the green
amendments.
0 New home performance surveys conducted in 1999 and 2007. These studies
provided a wealth ofdata regarding design, construction practices andperformance
for new residential projects in Fort Collins. The first data set was published
(www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site specific/uploads/newhome-evalpdj); the second
has not been published; but the information it provides was frequently referenced
during the green amendment development process.
a Integrated Design Assistance Program projects. Utilities staff work closely with
design teams for commercial projects receiving incentives under this program.
Discussion and modeling includes the relationship between proposed designs, code
requirements and current practice. Staff often has the opportunity to monitor
construction practices on these projects as well.
Baseline data is reflected in the "Current Practice"and "Context"sections of the Green Building
Practice Summary for each proposed amendment, available at www.fcgov.com/gbp. "
John Phelan,Energy Services Manager,discussed the proposed Ordinances and noted changes since
First Reading include maintenance of consistency between parallel Codes that address different
building types, specification of the applicability of amendments to existing buildings, and simple
edits.
Michael Doddridge,Homebuilders Association ofNorthern Colorado President,supported voluntary
green building and energy efficient construction but did not support the Ordinances.
Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, suggested allowing an opt-out provision for owner-occupied
dwellings with regard to Ordinance No. 032, 2011.
Alan Cram, Building Review Board Chairperson, stated the Building Review Board did not
recommend adoption of the Ordinances. There is no mechanism in the appraisal system at this time
to account for green building in property values. Incentives will produce more positive results than
will mandates.
Councilmember Manvel noted there are many items excluded from the Ordinances. He asked for
a brief explanation of LEED standards in comparison to the Ordinances. Phelan replied LEED is
the leading green building program for commercial buildings. All of the proposed commercial
amendments either support LEED prerequisites or gain points in terms of LEED, but would not
258
March 22, 2011
reach LEED certification alone. The national green building standard has been compared to these
amendments in terms of residential dwellings.
Councilmember Troxell thanked staff for including additional baseline data. He asked where the
home performance survey data could be found and how it should be interpreted. Phelan replied the
Technical Review Advisory Committee allowed for the involvement of community builders. Data
from the first home performance survey was published and available on the City webpage. —
Councilmember Troxell asked what the baseline data shows. Phelan replied the building industry
is continually evolving and is constantly aiming for improvement with both regulations and
voluntary Codes. These proposed Code changes will have no impact on builders already going
above and beyond existing Codes.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
030, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy noted individuals are compelled to purchase housing that is sustainable and
healthy,just as they are compelled to drink clean water, and it is the responsibility of government
to provide those things.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern the green building Codes may not be able to be
properly enforced.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted these amendments will not take effect until January 1, 2012. He
stated the amendments are modest and appropriate for Fort Collins.
Councilmember Troxell disagreed with the means of implementing the amendments and stated there
is no baseline data provided.
Councilmember Manvel noted these amendments are largely driven by the Climate Action Program,
approved unanimously by Council in December 2008, which included promotion of sustainable
practices in homes and businesses by requiring highly efficient new buildings and supporting
increased efficiency in existing buildings.
Councilmember Troxell stated the requirements should be incentive-based and based on the free
market.
Councilmember Manvel noted requirements and voluntary plans are not the same.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would support the Ordinances if it might be possible to include an opt-
out provision for residential dwellings. The Climate Action Plan is simply a plan and does not
include any binding provisions.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Kottwitz,Manvel,Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
259
March 22, 2011
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
031, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
032, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion to amend,seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz,to include
a five-year opt-out provision, until 2015, for owner-occupied residential dwellings.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would not support the amendment as there are items included in
these amendments that will make homes safer in terms of indoor air quality.
The vote on the amendment was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays:
Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays:
Hutchinson, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
033, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson,
Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
034, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson,
Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance
No. 035, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Roy. Nays: Hutchinson,
Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
260
March 22, 2011
Items Relating to the Implementation of Plan Fort Collins. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No, 036, 2011, Making Amendments to the Land Use Code
Implementing Policies of the 2010 Update of City Plan.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map by Changing the
Name of the "Commercial District(C)"to "General Commercial District(C-G). "
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2011, implement Land Use
Code and Zoning Map amendments related to adoption of the update to City Plan.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Clarification of Revision to Ordinance No. 036, 2011, Section 3.3.12 (A), 2011—I-25/S.H. 392
Corridor Activity Center Standards.
Section 3.3.12 (A) of Ordinance No. 036, 2011, is the only item that received discussion and
questions by Council during First Reading on March 1. A summary of staff responses to Council
follow-up questions during First Reading is included as Attachment 2.
In response to input and discussion from representatives of the synthetic stucco (E.LF.S.) trade
industry,staffis recommending an amendment to Ordinance No. 036,2011—I-25/SK 392 Corridor
Activity Center (CAC) Standards relating to Section 3.3.12 (A). The original building materials
standard adopted on First Reading prohibited E.I.F.S. Staff has incorporated additional
clarification in the Ordinance, identifying where other exterior building materials can be applied,
including E.LF.S. Options include permitting other materials on the ground floor building
elevations not visible from a public street, and on any additional building elevation above ground
floor level.
The proposed masonry standard applies to ground floor building elevations visible from a public
street. This staff recommendation is based primarily on aesthetics in order to create unique and
distinctive commercial development within the CAC gateway area. Staff responses to Council
questions related to masonry standard rationale, comparing exterior building materials
performance between ELF.S. and stone or brick including R-Value, durability, energy efficiency,
cost/benefit, and green building standards are included in Attachment 2.
Staff has assembled a series ofphotos of both E LF.S. and real brick and stone project applications
(see Attachment 3). In addition, staff has sample boards of these comparative materials for display
prior to, and during the Hearing.
261
March 22, 2011
Town of Windsor Review Process
On February 3, 2011, the Windsor Planning Commission approved a recommendation to the
Windsor Town Board to adopt the Ordinance.
On February 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance on First Reading.
On March 14, the Windsor Town Board adopted the Ordinance as amended on Second Reading by
a vote of 6-0. "
Pete Wray, City Planner, stated these land use and design standards were developed as a result of
direction from the Windsor Town Board and Council to provide further consistency and increased
design quality for future commercial development within the corridor activity center. In response
to input and discussion from representatives of the synthetic stucco trade industry, staff is
recommending an amendment to the Ordinance.
Nancy Partridge,Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, Denver, supported the original version of the
Ordinance, including masonry standards.
Diane Travis, Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, Denver, supported the original version of the
Ordinance.
Sherrie Temple, Soderberg Masonry, supported the original version of the Ordinance.
Rhonda Carey, Bighorn Masonry, supported the original version of the Ordinance.
Joseph Plummer, Town of Windsor Planning Director, supported the amended Ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for the reason behind the amendment. Wray replied the original
masonry standard was primarily based on aesthetics and the original Ordinance did not clearly
identify where other building materials could be applied.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked why these standards are not being made voluntary. Wray replied the
original standard prohibited synthetic stucco in all instances; staff has since made the amendment
to allow other materials on upper floors and on the first floor if not visible from public streets. Staff
was asked to provide unique,quality land use and design standards for this area and therefore opted
to supplement the existing standards with a short list of new standards.
Councilmember Troxell asked if stucco is being used in the Lincoln Center construction and stated
the amendment has struck an appropriate balance.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Ordinance No.
036, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
262
March 22, 2011
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Troxell,to adopt Ordinance No.
037, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Suspension of Rules
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to suspend the rules and
extend the meeting past 12:00 a.m. Yeas: Hutchinson,Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz,
Manvel and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 024, 2011,
Amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 3 of the City Code
Pertaining to City Service Areas. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on March 1, 2011, implements changes to the City's internal organizational structure.
These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the
City Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2011 was considered and adopted by City Council on March
1. Council requested some additional information in conjunction with Second Reading.
1. Description of the terms found on the City organization chart for Service Area, Service Unit,
Department and Division are as follows:
a. Service Area—a group of related functions and services; the Service Area Director
reports directly to the City Manager
b. Service Unit—a group of related functions and services; the Service Unit Director
reports to a Service Area Director
C. Department—a group of related functions and services; the Department Director
reports to a Service Area Director or a Service Unit Director
d. Division— in the general organization, a division is a subset of a department and
reports to a department director; in Fort Collins Utilities, a division is a subset of
a Service Unit and reports to a Service Unit Director
263
March 22, 2011
2. Organizational Chart
The chart focuses on the Service Area structure, which is the element of the organization that the
City Council, in accordance with the Charter and City Code, has the power to establish, change,
consolidate or abolish upon report and recommendation of the City Manager. The changes are:
a. Renaming two Service Areas: Community Services renamed as Policy, Planning and
Transportation Services and Internal Services renamed as Community and Operations
Services.
b. Establishing a new service area entitled Employee and Communication Services
Three versions of the organizational chart are attached:
a. A simplified version is provided that focuses specifically on the new Service Area Structure
that was adopted on First Reading on March 1. The new chart shows the types of services
that are provided in each Service Area as opposed to a specific listing by our internal
department structure. The new Assistant to the City Managerposition, which will focus on
sustainability and the built environment, does not appear because it is part of the City
Manager's Office rather than a Service Area. (Attachment 2)
b. The revised organizational chart that waspresented and adopted on First Reading on March
1, 2011. (Attachment 3)
C. The current organizational chart (Attachment 4)
The colors of the revised charts were changed to be more vibrant and visible.
As explained at First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2011, this recommended organizational
change is based on the changing needs of the organization, including the development of an
organizational strategic planning process and implementation of a performance excellence
initiative, as well as opportunities in light of upcoming retirements and anticipated changes in
organizational leadership. "
City Manager Atteberry summarized the Ordinance changes since First Reading.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, did not support the creation of the Assistant to the City
Manager position.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked for an explanation of the new positions. City Manager Atteberry
replied these changes have been made as a direct result of Council direction and the passage of 2B
has allowed for new expenditures.
Councilmember Troxell supported the new positions and organizational changes.
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to adopt Ordinance No.
024, 2011, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Roy supported the Ordinance.
264
March 22, 2011
Mayor Hutchinson supported City Manager Atteberry and his job with organizational development.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Troxell stated he has heard a variety of concern regarding the Eastside/Westside
standards implementation. He requested a date certain for review of the standards.
Councilmember Kottwitz and Mayor Hutchinson supported the review and possible
consideration of changes to the standards.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
265