HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/02/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Bob Overbeck, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
July 2, 2013
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring July 7-14, 2013 as German-Russian Heritage Week.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 25)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 30)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 21. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
Speakers are asked to:
! State your name and address for the record.
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk.
! Address your comments to Council, not the audience.
! Promptly cease your comments when the allotted time expires.
! You may not yield part or all of your time to another and another speaker will not be
credited with time requested but not used by you.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed.
Page 3
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 4 and June 18, 2013 Regular Meetings and
the June 11, 2013 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General
Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related
Activities.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $3,169 as the 2012 payments for
public services and facilities. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 18,
2013, refunds those payments, also known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), to fund sorely
needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort
Collins residents.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Access
Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners Association.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 18, 2013, formalizes the Natural
Areas Department verbal agreement with Paragon Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) for
access across an existing two-track road off Trilby Road to the HOA’s pumphouse. The pumphouse
is located within an existing irrigation easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The HOA’s
current access has minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional impacts are anticipated.
Access would be solely for maintenance and operation of the facilities associated with the existing
irrigation easement. No other access rights are to be conveyed.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the
Multi-jurisdictional Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department
of Justice on behalf of the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF) for federal grant monies to
help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. These grant awards will
be used to offset operating expenses for each participating agency.
In addition, because of the significant decrease in federal funds available for drug enforcement, the
drug task force is transferring $170,888 from its forfeiture reserve account to its 2013 operating
budget to cover unfunded expenses. The majority of the forfeiture reserve account is made up of
assets seized from people engaged in illegal drug activities.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund
to Fund the Costs Associated with the Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to appropriate medical marijuana application and licensing fees to
fund the services provided by a contractual Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation
Services Fund and in the Stormwater Fund for the Restoration of 60 Feet of Frontage along the
Poudre River Owned by the City of Fort Collins.
This Ordinance appropriates $100,000 split evenly between Stormwater Reserves and Transportation
Reserves for 60 feet of frontage restoration between the Block One area of responsibility and the
Linden Street bridge. Reimbursement from the City shall be limited to 40% of the total actual costs,
not to exceed $100,000. Reimbursements are to cover the restoration of 60 feet of frontage owned
by the City of Fort Collins. Eligible costs for reimbursement include design, a conditional letter of map
revision (CLOMR) and construction costs.
12. Items Relating to Natural Area Appropriations.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenues in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
Page 4
Areas Programming Not Included in the 2013 Adopted City Budget.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations to the Capital Project Fund for the
Natural Areas Office Building Project and Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Department 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
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and funding sources were
moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Therefore, unspent funds need to be appropriated
into the following year’s budget before they can be spent. 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. Natural
Areas has received unanticipated revenues in 2013 and has reasons to need these funds in 2013 to
fund a number of land conservation efforts.
Ordinance No. 090, 2013, will appropriate $7,310,000: $5,380,000 from prior year reserves and
$1,930,000 from 2013 unanticipated revenues in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of providing
Natural Areas Programming not included in the 2013 budget.
Ordinance No. 091, 2013, will appropriate $1,420,000 from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas
Fund for transfer to the Capital Project Fund for the purpose of constructing a new Natural Areas
Office building.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2013, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2013 annual
update of the Land Use Code.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2013, Establishing User Fees for Public Use Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations.
This Ordinance will establish user fee rates for public use electric vehicle charging stations operated
through the City’s public electric vehicle (EV) charging station pilot program. These user fees only
apply to the public use charging stations owned and operated by the City of Fort Collins Utility
Services. The user fees for use of 240 volt “Level 2” charging stations will be $1.00 per 1 hour
charging session and the fee for use of a 480 volt “Level 3” DC quick charger will be $3.00 per
session. These fees are calculated to recover the direct energy and payment processing costs
associated with each charging session. While user fees for general fund services can be established
administratively by the City Manager, Council must establish all Utility Services rates and fees by
ordinance.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 212
Laporte Avenue to Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to Five Years. (This item has been
withdrawn from consideration)
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. wishes to lease 212 West Laporte Avenue to house a non-
profit café with a minimal food processing facility. The total yearly lease payment for the property will
be a minimum of $44,688. The term of the lease shall be for one (1) year, with renewals on a yearly
basis for up to four (4) successive one-year terms. With this lease, either party will have the option
to terminate at any time upon a one (1) year advance written notice to the other party. The tenant will
be responsible for the taxes, all utilities, communication services, trash services and janitorial
services.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2013, Amending Ordinance No. 068, 2013, Authorizing the
Conveyance of a Non-exclusive Utility Easement in a Portion of South Shields Street to Public
Service Company of Colorado, to Increase the Easement Term from Fifteen to Twenty Years.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Ordinance No. 068, 2013,extending the period from fifteen
to twenty years. Ordinance No. 068, 2013, authorizing conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility
Easement to Xcel, was adopted in May, and follow-up conversations with Xcel (Public Service
Company) require this extension.
WITHDRAWN
Page 5
This easement addresses the location of West Main pipeline at the northwest corner of Harmony
Road and Shields Street and provides for the location in the right of way instead of on private
property. The City has agreed to pay for any relocation of the approximately 2000 feet of line adjacent
to the property that may be necessary in the next twenty years. This is a low-risk option and will be
consistent with the location of the pipeline in the Shields Street right of way. In order to document this
agreement between the City and Xcel, staff is recommending a Non-Exclusive Pipeline Easement
within the Shields Street right of way.
17. Resolution 2013-056 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the 2013 Grant Agreement (AIP Project
No. 3-08-0023-32-2013) with the Federal Aviation Administration for Improvements at the Fort Collins-
Loveland Municipal Airport.
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a Grant Agreement from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for up to $1,536,295. This FAA Grant will be used to for a capital construction
project that includes the rehabilitation and repair of the Airport’s primary aircraft apron and perimeter
fence completion.
18. Resolution 2013-057 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Purpose of Establishing Performance,
Monitoring and Mitigation Parameters for the Jefferson Street Corridor.
City Council approved the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report on June 5, 2012. This
included the recommended preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as well as actions needed
to amend the Jefferson/Riverside (SH14) Access Management Plan. City staff worked with Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) over the past year to finalize an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) with CDOT regarding the recommended changes for Jefferson Street. This IGA spells out the
conditions CDOT and the City agree to for converting Jefferson Street from a four lane street to a
three lane street. This includes the required monitoring of traffic conditions before and after the
conversion, mitigation measures to address problems if needed and if all mitigation measures fail the
IGA allows CDOT to convert Jefferson Street back to four lanes (as a last measure).
19. Resolution 2013-058 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District For Participation in a Joint Regional Water Treatment Solutions
Study.
Staff proposes to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for a joint study to examine options for
regional water treatment solutions between the Tri-Districts and the City of Fort Collins. The scope
of any cooperative solution is strictly limited to creating a business model of receiving raw water,
treating it, and returning a finished potable water product to the member entities at a wholesale rate.
Options range from remaining independent, additional intergovernmental agreements, combining
facilities, or other options to be determined during the investigation phase of the study. Acquisition
and control of water rights or raw water storage is not part of this discussion.
20. Resolution 2013-059 Making a Liaison Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. (This item
has been withdrawn from consideration)
This Resolution appoints Mayor Karen Weitkunat as the liaison to the Planning and Zoning Board,
replacing Councilmember Gino Campana.
21. Resolution 2013-060 Making Appointments to the Citizen Review Board and the Golf Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation of James O’Neill.
Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak reviewed applicants on file and elected to
interview the applicants. After conducting interviews, Mayor Weitkunat and Mayor Pro Tem Horak
recommend Austin Saunders to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on
December 31, 2016.
One vacancy currently exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of Robert Visocky. Since there
were no applicants on file, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw elected to
Page 6
readvertise for the vacancy. After conducting interviews, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak and
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw recommend Tim Martinez to fill the vacancy with a term to begin
immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014.
END CONSENT
22. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
23. Staff Reports.
a. Fire Conditions Update.
24. Councilmember Reports.
25. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
26. Items Relating to Urban Agriculture. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Lindsay Ex; 10 minute staff presentation;
30 minute discussion)
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 Amending the Land Use Code to by the Addition
of Provisions Pertaining to Urban Agriculture.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 Amending Chapter 4, Article II & III of the City
Code Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals.
The purpose of this item is to better align the Land Use and City Code with City Plan by allowing
urban agriculture land uses in all zone districts, expand the districts where farmers markets are
allowed, and allow a broader range and number of animals to be raised in the City.
City Plan contains several principle and policy statements aimed at promoting local food production.
Several City Departments are coordinating with numerous public, private, and academic entities to
Page 7
implement these principles and policies. However, the Land Use Code is in direct conflict with City
Plan as it only allows urban agriculture in four of the twenty-five zone districts as a primary use. While
City Council amended the Land Use and City Code in 2008 to allow six chickens hens per lot
(Ordinance No. 072, 2008), hundreds of citizens expressed the desire to practice urban agriculture
in more zones in the City, allow farmers markets in more areas, and allow for a wider range and
number of animals to be raised.
Based on City Plan and this feedback, staff proposes Land Use and City Code changes to implement
City Plan. The proposed Land Use Code changes include (1) the establishment of an urban
agriculture licensing system that will allow urban agriculture in all zone districts and (2) allowing
farmers markets in more zone districts in the City. Proposed City Code changes include (1) scaling
the number of chickens allowed based on lot size, (2) allowing duck hens to be raised, and (3)
updating the beekeeping Ordinance to reflect current best practices.
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund
to Be Used for Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope. (staff: Joe Frank, Bruce
Hendee; 2 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on June 11, 2013, by a vote of 5-2 (nays: Cunniff,
Poppaw), appropriates funding in the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Sister Mary Alice
Murphy Center of Hope, from January to July, 2013 (six months). Other funding partners include
United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and Serve 6.8 ($35,000). The Murphy
Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless and near
homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important component in the community’s
network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-lived and non-
recurring in Fort Collins.
At Council’s direction on First Reading, a new Section was added to the Ordinance, affirming that the
provision of funds serves an important public purpose.
28. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a
Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and City-Owned
Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River District Block One Mixed Use
Development. (staff: Helen Matson, Craig Foreman; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute
discussion)
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development is a mixed use development at 418
Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The property is owned
by Linden Bridges LLC. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013,
authorizes the conveyance of several easements that are required for this project for improvements
in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and River enhancement, drainage and landscape areas. At
Council direction on First Reading, two alternatives for fees for the other proposed easements are
provided.
29. Resolution 2013-061 Approving the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis:
Final Report. (staff: Aaron Iverson; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis Final Report is the
culmination of an 18-month effort. This study has included in-depth review of existing conditions and
a comprehensive development of a variety of alternatives, ultimately resulting in recommendations
for improved roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities for Harmony Road. The study was
conducted with extensive public input and feedback; the Final Report is a reflection of guidance from
the community on the preferred future for Harmony Road.
The draft Final Report, along with all the technical appendices, is available for review at
www.fcgov.com/harmony.
30. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
Page 8
31. Other Business.
32. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West
Bob Overbeck 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
July 2, 2013
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Review:
• Executive Director’s Review of Agenda.
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Board on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Chairperson or Vice Chair. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Chairperson may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to Secretary
9 of 465
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Chairperson and Commissioners to follow-up on issues raised during
Citizen Participation.
6. Staff Reports.
7. Commissioner Reports.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Chairperson introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Chairperson requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Board questions of staff on the item
! Board motion on the item
! Board discussion
! Final Board comments
! Board vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz
again at the end of the speaker’s time.
8. Resolution No. 060 of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Expressing the Board’s Intent Related
to the Use of Tax Protest Covenants in Connection with Redevelopment Projects for the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority. (staff: John Voss; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion)
Redevelopment agreements have generally required that an instrument be recorded to restrict the
protest of property tax valuations on the redeveloped property, a restriction that protects the interests
of the Authority by preventing the reduction of tax increment revenues. This restriction needs to be
waived because, in certain circumstances, it could cause certain tax revenues to be viewed as
“private payments,” which could then make the bonds in URA refinancing “taxable.” If taxable bonds
are issued, the URA’s borrowing cost increases. The proposed resolution will authorize the Executive
Director to modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants for the benefit of the URA.
9. Other Business.
10. Adjournment.
10 of 465
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the German-Russian community of Fort Collins and surrounding regions has
designated the week of July 7 – 14, 2013 to share its heritage and culture with the residents of Fort
Collins and surrounding communities; and
WHEREAS, 2013 marks the 44th International Convention of the American Historical
Society of Germans from Russia (AHSGR), and the first time, the convention is held in Fort Collins,
Colorado, in conjunction with participation by the International Center for German Russian Studies
at Colorado State University; and
WHEREAS, 2013 marks the 250th anniversary of the July 22, 1763 Manifesto of Empress
Catherine the Great and the waves of migration of Germans into the Russian Empire, which began
the later waves of migration of Germans from Russia to North and South America, bringing with
them a rich cultural and agricultural heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins community and surrounding regions will be given the
opportunity to participate in the AHSGR convention and festivities planned for German-Russian
Heritage Week by celebrating the legacy of the Manifesto through music, arts, culinary and
educational experiences; and
WHEREAS, German-Russian Heritage Week symbolizes the shared rich agricultural
heritage of the German-Russian community and relationships with Colorado State University, the
Western Sugar Company (formerly the Great Western Sugar Company) and ongoing relationships
with Russian Universities and German –Russian communities in North and South America.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the week of July 7–14, 2013 as
GERMAN-RUSSIAN HERITAGE WEEK
in Fort Collins and encourage the citizens of Fort Collins to participate in the festivities planned in
the community and for the convention of the American Heritage Society of Germans from Russia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
11 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 4 and June 18, 2013 Regular Meetings and the June 11, 2013
Adjourned Meeting.
12 of 465
June 4, 2013
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, June 4, 2013, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Chris Eikenberg, formerly of 1245 East Lincoln, discussed the fire at Buffalo Run Apartments and
expressed concern regarding management of the complex. She stated all apartments should be
required to have a fire extinguisher on site and requested Council pass legislation related to “slum”
landlords.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, expressed concern regarding management at Bull Run
Apartments and expressed concern regarding upcoming changes to Dial-a-Ride services.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the affordability of the junk bonds for the
Foothills Mall project.
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, thanked staff and Council for work on the hydraulic
fracturing issue and stated Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins has set forth a proposal to place a
moratorium on fracking for five years.
Kelly Giddens, Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins campaign organizer, stated the citizens of Fort
Collins should be able to make a decision regarding fracking and suggested a five year moratorium
would allow time to garner information from health studies.
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding parking requirements for rental
properties.
125
13 of 465
June 4, 2013
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional information regarding the property management
company at Buffalo Run and Bull Run Apartments. City Manager Atteberry replied staff will meet
with Ms. Eikenberg and Ms. Armendariz.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the bond funding for the Foothills Mall project was the best possible
deal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2013 Regular Meeting and the
May 14, 2013 Adjourned Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is a request for
an appropriation of $33,000 to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program
from prior years in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund (KFCG). The Landmark Rehabilitation
Loan Program is a highly successful financial incentive program for encouraging the
sustainable revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures. The Program
was funded with Keep Fort Collins Great funds in the amount of $25,000 each year for 2013-
2014. However, this year alone, the popular program received over $65,000 in loan funding
requests from 12 applicants for 24 projects costing over $206,200 in materials and services.
Without Rehabilitation Loan Program funding, many of these projects could not proceed.
The request is for the use of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created
by the 2012 unspent Design Assistance Program (DAP) budget. Both the Loan Program and
the DAP were funded in 2012 from KFCG - Other Community Priorities. These two
incentive programs are closely linked sub-programs of the Historic Preservation Program,
and provide a continuum of financial support for qualified historic preservation projects.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so
as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, changes City Code
Section 4-196 from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. On February 19, 2013,
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013, amending Chapter 4 of the City Code
decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. This change was
intended to include all animal offenses that constitute neighborhood nuisances. After further
deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with
an animal control officer as a criminal misdemeanor. Staff recommends changing this Code
section from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor.
126
14 of 465
June 4, 2013
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is an effort to
correct an inadvertent change that occurred with a previous Code change. This amendment
will provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil
infractions. This will apply to a second or subsequent violation within a twelve (12) month
period for the same violation. This process already applies for Land Use Code Section
3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits, so this change would make the process consistent for
civil infractions. Additionally, this Code change specifies that a civil citation may be issued
immediately for animal code violations.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, makes two minor
changes to the Code provisions relating to Municipal Court Referees. First, it removes the
residency requirement for such Referees from Section 19-36 so that the Assistant Municipal
Judge, who lives outside the City limits, can serve as a back-up Referee, especially on
animal infraction cases. Second, it revises Section 19-41 so that all Referees have the same
authority to reduce or waive penalties and assessments when appropriate. It removes the
previous distinction between the authority of the Parking Referee and the Civil Infraction
Referee, which was creating some confusion.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non-City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, eliminates the
requirement that a non-City utility provider apply for a permit to continue providing electric
service to properties annexed into the city. A revocable permit would automatically be
granted at annexation and revoked upon transfer of service.
The second proposed Code change would allow the Utilities Executive Director to adopt
minor technical revisions that clarify an existing standard or improve conformity toward best
engineering practices.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, grants the Utilities
Executive Director authority to approve temporary exemptions or technical modifications
to the City’s various electric utility regulations for the purpose of supporting City-managed
special pilot projects, equipment testing or research partnerships.
This authority will not be extended to allow exemptions of such regulations and standards
to ongoing operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing
or research projects.
127
15 of 465
June 4, 2013
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property.
Council approved the Woodward incentive package in April 2013. As a part of that
agreement, Woodward agreed to advance funds to support the relocation of the Platte River
Power Authority (PRPA) Transmission Line. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 21, 2013, appropriates $1,297,080 from the General Fund Reserves for the
relocation of the PRPA transmission line. Immediate appropriation is needed to allow the
transmission line relocation to move forward so that Woodward's building site plans may
remain on schedule. Delay in authorizing the appropriation may necessitate the need for
PRPA to construct and remove a temporary transmission line as well as design and construct
the relocated permanent transmission line. This effort would require that PRPA incur
additional costs.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation
Program.
This Ordinance shifts $135,560 that has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program’s
reserve account into the City’s General Fund account so that the money can be used for the
purposes intended. Revenues are paid into the Waste Innovation Program by City
departments that “self haul” trash from municipal operations for disposal in the Larimer
County Landfill. The fund is designated to pay for projects that enhance these same
departments’ ability to divert more waste away from the landfill. Unspent funds from
several previous years had been moved into a “reserve” account; this action moves the funds
back into the General Fund.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
The Stormwater Utility has received a grant from the State of Colorado totaling $17,881.
The grant funds will be used to enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the
increased risk of flooding caused by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used
for the match of $5,960.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The City will use a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
(Soapstone Prairie) as match towards the grant, as well as management funds currently
obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent
as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will
expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work
to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds
128
16 of 465
June 4, 2013
that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority
species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico.
This will be the fifth such match authorized as the City, in partnership with RMBO, has been
successful on four previous grant applications. The previous partnership efforts have resulted
in a broader understanding of the grasslands bird species that nest on Soapstone Prairie and
the contiguous Meadow Springs Ranch, and has contributed to the conservation of these
species’ winter ranges in Mexico.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both
Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential
developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land
to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to
require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee
amounts by 11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district
receives by 6.9 percent. The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected
because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed
and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will
not be adjusting fees in 2013.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm
Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel
within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge
are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased
by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of
the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency
has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current
leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases
with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals
process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language.
Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the
same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the
end of the lease term of five years.
19. Resolution 2013-051 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed
Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District
Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2012 from the Poudre Valley Fire
17 129 of 465
June 4, 2013
Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue
to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so
as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non-City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into Standard Power Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic System Owners
for up to 20 Years.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation
Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
130
18 of 465
June 4, 2013
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements,
a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and
City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River District Block One
Mixed Use Development.
Councilmember Overbeck withdrew Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge
Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 17, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained
in Such Agreement, from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items not
withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Horak, Troxell,
Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Rick Richter, City Engineer, discussed highlights of the Mason Street Corridor MAX project. He
noted the Prospect Road closure was not as long as expected and discussed the schedule for station
construction and upcoming closures.
Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Deputy Director, reported on a VIP
reception held on April 25th, that provided tours and updates regarding the MAX project.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the frequency of east-west road closures. Richter replied the closures
along Mason are primarily at the railroad and arterial crossings and are related to utility installation.
The Harmony Road closure was not related to this project, but rather to some safety improvements
that were needed for the railroad crossing.
131
19 of 465
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the configuration of the railroad ballasts. Richter replied the
railroad’s preference is to have the ballasts level with the ties, which will ultimately occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a status report regarding the project’s budget. Richter replied the
project is tracking very close to the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested information regarding the bridge to Whole Foods. Richter replied
construction on that overpass will begin within a few weeks, with a bridge being set in September.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Horak reported on the strategic planning process at Poudre Fire Authority, which
will include planning regarding ambulance service. He also reported on the Platte River Power
Authority strategic planning process and stated preliminary estimates will place a rate increase in
2014 at less than 3%.
Ordinance No. 080, 2013
Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication
and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre
School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a
school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for
development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is
authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts by
11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district receives by 6.9 percent.
The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land
values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School
Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In April 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Thompson and Poudre School Districts entered into
Intergovernmental Agreements regarding land dedication for new developments, including a
provision for fees-in-lieu of land dedication. Poudre School District has asked that the amount of
the fees be increased to reflect the current cost of acquiring school sites. Thompson School District
has not requested a change.
The City’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Poudre School District allows for periodic
updates to the fees and land dedication requirements. Since adoption of the IGA, fees have been
adjusted in 2001, 2006, and 2011.
132
20 of 465
June 4, 2013
Fees are based on a number of factors including school site size, student population projections,
enrollment capacities of each type of school (elementary, junior high and high schools), and the cost
of developed land within the school district. Site sizes and enrollment capacities are set by School
District policy.
School Districts in Colorado are allowed by State law to either require school site dedications from
residential developers or collect a fee-in-lieu of such land dedication. The calculation of this fee
must be closely tied to the cost of land to be dedicated, as well as the factors listed above.
This fee increase is at the request of PSD and is based on a land value analysis performed for the
District in late 2012 (Attachment 2).
The effect of the proposed change in per dwelling unit costs would be as follows:
Poudre School District
Fee per dwelling unit:Current FeeRevised Fee
1-4 attached dwelling units $1,600 $1,710
5 or more attached dwelling units $ 800 $ 855
The Intergovernmental Agreement requires that the City conduct a public hearing prior to any
changes in the fee or land requirement. The Poudre School District Board has reviewed its
methodology for this program and requested that the City Council approve this revision. The
detailed methodology for calculating the fees are provided in Exhibits A and B of the Ordinance.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed Ordinance will not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins because the
fees are collected on behalf of Poudre School District. Revenues from the fees will pass through
City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20.
This Ordinance implements a fee increase requested by Poudre School District. The increased fee
will raise the cost of residential development in the community collected at the time of building
permit by $110 per single family unit Multi-family unit fees (over 5 units) are increased by $55 per
dwelling unit. This is a 6.9% increase.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This action was reviewed and approved at the February 26, 2013 Poudre School District Board
Meeting.”
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern regarding the methodology used by Poudre School
District and asked whether any further consideration has been given to asking the state legislature
for additional enabling legislation to allow for brick and mortar to be covered with development fees
as well. Ed Holder, Poudre School District, replied the rates are based on three factors, which
include student yield, school site size, and the residential land values. Those values have been
133
21 of 465
June 4, 2013
reassessed every two years based on Larimer County’s assessments and the school site size has
dropped.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about legislation for building construction. Mr. Holder replied there
is a potential for marijuana tax funding of school construction, but he is unaware of any other
proposals.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested these fees should be prorated to allow for true
infill and redevelopment.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if Poudre School District currently has a level fee structure across
the district. Mr. Holder replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Campana agreed with Mr. Sutherland that impact fees should be evaluated for infill
projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if there is a City–Poudre School District committee. Mr. Holder
replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested this item be discussed annually at that
committee.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Troxell,
Poppaw, Campana and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space,
Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open
Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote
Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and
the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat
production and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities and County.
Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the
lease revenues for each property. As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have
worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for
lease via one Request for Proposals process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more
contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel
will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native
grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years.
134
22 of 465
June 4, 2013
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1997, the 479-acre Long View Farm Open Space was purchased by Larimer County, the City of
Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with an ownership split of 50%, 33%, and 17%, respectively.
At the time of acquisition, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was also drafted. Per the terms
of the IGA, the County manages the property and administers the agricultural lease, and receives
all rental income from the property.
In 2000, the 785-acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area was acquired from Harry Sauer by Loveland
(75% ownership) and Fort Collins (25% ownership). Per the terms of the IGA, Loveland manages
the property and the agricultural lease, and receives all rental income from the property.
In 1997, Fort Collins acquired the 973-acre McKee Farm parcel of Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Fort Collins owns and manages the property entirely with no shared ownership or management with
other entities.
Mr. Sauer farmed all three properties prior to City and County ownership, and has continued
farming under the existing leases that are set to expire in 2013.
RFP Process
In the fall of 2011, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was conducted by Fort Collins for dryland farming
leases on all three properties. Mr. Sauer’s proposal was selected. The new agricultural lease
reflects the terms and conditions outlined in the proposal. Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer
County worked together to draft leases for each Property that are nearly identical in terms with
several minor exceptions. The lease rate and the large majority of terms for all three leases are the
same. These consistent lease terms will allow consistency and ease of management across the three
adjacent properties and provide Mr. Sauer with essentially one set of lease terms to adhere to.
Lease Terms
Mr. Sauer will lease Long View, Prairie Ridge, and McKee for a period of five (5) years beginning
August 1, 2013 and expiring no later than July 31, 2018.
The lease rate will be $20/acre of farmed land annually for each property. Mr. Sauer will receive
100% of the Crop Flexibility payments from the Farm Service Agency, and is responsible for any
and all costs associated with crop production, insect control and noxious weed control. In addition,
the lease terms have been updated to a more contemporary format with more preferable terms.
Restoration
Over the past five years, Fort Collins has restored approximately 50 acres of farmland annually to
native grasslands on McKee. Currently, Fort Collins plans to continue restoration efforts on McKee
at the same pace; approximately 50 acres of farmable acreage will remain on the property by the
end of this lease term, which will be restored the following year. The McKee lease details this
restoration and Mr. Sauer will work cooperatively with Fort Collins to farm the remaining portion
of the property.
135
23 of 465
June 4, 2013
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rent payments from Long View and Prairie Ridge will be retained by Larimer County and
Loveland, respectively, per the respective IGAs. The McKee lease rate is roughly double the
previous rate, and Mr. Sauer will be responsible for all management on the lease area of the
property. The City will receive all rental income from the McKee property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no significant environmental impacts to Fort Collins. The properties’ land use will not
change and existing farming practices and restoration efforts will continue unchanged.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 8, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend that City Council approve three leases with Harry Sauer to farm dryland winter wheat
on portions of Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.”
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the price per acre figure for the lease and requested
information regarding a GMO policy, the contemporary lease terms and the mineral rights owner.
Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner, replied the lease price was decided
based on a request for proposal, and Mr. Sauer was the high bid in this case. Additionally, the rates
are in line with typical custom rates for dryland farms in Colorado and this lease places the cost of
weed control solely on Mr. Sauer. He stated there is currently no GMO policy as there are no wheat
crops which are pesticide-resistant. Figgs replied oil and gas rights are held by the City and no
surface entry is allowed for any ore collection.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the restoration schedule for the properties. Figgs replied
restoration began about five years ago and approximately 50 acres per year are converted from
cropland to native grass. Larimer County and Loveland are not restoring their properties at this
time.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 081, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if the Legislative Committee has discussed GMO information provided
by Food and Water Watch. Councilmember Troxell replied it has not been discussed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
136
24 of 465
June 4, 2013
Ordinance No. 075, 2013,
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into Standard Power
Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic
System Owners for up to 20 Years, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new
local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers in support of Fort Collins renewable energy
commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The basis of the FCSP3 is a
fixed-price, 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fort Collins Utilities and
photovoltaic system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through
the budget process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is
necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements.”
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager, provided a brief description of the program and stated
citizen comments were addressed via a Service Area Request following First Reading.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is a Charter provision which prohibits paying for
experimentation with rate payer dollars without a vote of Council. He supported this Ordinance.
Councilmember Poppaw requested information as to what occurs at the end of the 20-year
agreement. Norm Weaver, Senior Energy Services Engineer, replied several close-out options are
available, including contract extensions and a switch to net metering by the solar client. He stated
there is a notion that renewable energy credits (RECs) do retire after a certain amount of time.
Phelan replied the RECs are generated as the energy is generated and delivered on an annual basis.
The 20-year term is standard in the industry to create a clear financial structure to enable the initial
capitalization of the projects.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 075, 2013, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak supported the Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell supported distributed generation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
137
25 of 465
June 4, 2013
Resolution 2013-052
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal
of the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the
Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for
the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. On April 4, 2013, a Notice of Appeal
was filed by Joel Rovnak seeking to remand the decision back to the Planning and Zoning Board.
On May 21, 2013, City Council voted 5 - 0 (Poppaw absent, Campana withdrawn) upholding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate
the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council is required to adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence contained in the Traffic Impact Study
which was substantially false and grossly misleading.
At the May 21, 2013 appeal hearing, Council considered the testimony of the Appellant, Applicant
and City staff. After consideration of the record and discussion, Council determined that Planning
and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Council upheld the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board, approving the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development
Plan.”
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of this item as she did not participate in the
appeal hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution
2013-052. Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 083, 2013,
Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
138
26 of 465
June 4, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standards
1, 2, and 3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its
architectural significance to Fort Collins.
The Johnson Farm is significant under Standard One (1) for its association with agricultural
contexts in Fort Collins since the late nineteenth century, including the open range cattle industry,
farming and ranching, and sheep raising.
The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several
prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley,
Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established
multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and
stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in
the city as President of the Water Supply and Storage Company and Mayor from 1963 to 1967.
Furthermore, the property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses,
built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture.
Also, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of
a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access
to forage stored in the barn.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Recognition of the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark
enables its owner to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only
to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the
property would see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this
increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that
designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark;
and the assurance of predictability that design review offers.”
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At a public hearing held on April 10, 2013, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted
unanimously 8-0 to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards 1, 2, and
3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural
significance to Fort Collins. “
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner, showed slides of the property.
139
27 of 465
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 083, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell commended the written history of the property.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s
April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats, Project Development Plan,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld, With Modifications
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the
application for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to
demolish the existing King’s Auto building at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900
square-foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square-feet of
ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry Station in
the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone
District. The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in
parking lot landscaping; (b) the ability to provide off-site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking
lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and (d) an increased percentage of compact
parking spaces.
On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,
failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false
and grossly misleading, and substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when
approving the Project Development Plan application.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the appeals procedure contained in the Municipal Code, the appeal is required to be
considered upon the record on appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds
for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing
on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties-in-interest were raised in the notice of
appeal.
The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-
in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared
to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers.
140
28 of 465
June 4, 2013
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
After testimony from the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board voted 4 – 0 to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan application.
In support of its motion to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the
findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 9 of the staff report.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to be
reviewed as a type 2.”
The Appellant states, “staff provided information to the board concerning why the hearing was held
so soon after the required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, ‘caught in
the middle’, of a change in the L.U.C. This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go
through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the development submittal.”
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got
caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made
a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we
had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been
141
29 of 465
June 4, 2013
explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the
right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.”
The Appellant states, “Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image
in the form of a tree-framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major façade was
featured and left on the screen. The true representation of mass and scale of the project remains
elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and avoided depiction of the reality of the
project.”
The neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2013. The Applicant submitted a revised version
of the building elevations prior to the public hearing on April 16, 2013, as shown in the Power Point
presentation to Planning and Zoning Board (Attachment 4: Materials submitted to Planning and
Zoning Board at the Hearing). The revised plans show a fifth floor setback on the west side and a
change in material from metal panel to brick.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the manner in which images were presented.
Building elevations were displayed during staff presentation and provided in the staff report
(Attachment 1 – PDP Plan Set).
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially
ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan
application?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and
indeed were unaware and uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to review
this project at all or specifically was taking place the next day.”
The Appellant states, “Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at
that work session where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe.
Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was
inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter to proper expected
procedure.”
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got
caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made
a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
142
30 of 465
June 4, 2013
that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we
had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been
explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the
right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “This project fails to meet compatibility standards.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C)(1) states: horizontal masses shall not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without
substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed
elements.
The Appellant states, “The proposed 5 story 56-foot high building at 240-feet in length along the
major axis has a ratio of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block
frontage” and the “proposed step in the building height on the North elevation did fully depict how
it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack of a West elevation. There is little or
no visual effect from the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor to the major East
or West elevations.”
143
31 of 465
June 4, 2013
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) states: all sides of the building shall include material and design
characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side
or rear facades shall be prohibited.
The Appellant states, “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.
No substantial projecting elements or substantial recessed elements of consequence occur to break
up the block-like composition leading to the lack of architectural quality, (please see elevations).
There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading elements brick and minimal enhanced features
proposed as shown on the principal elevation.”
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the design characteristics on the side facing the
neighborhood.
Staff has prepared information regarding the design characteristics on the side of the building
facing the neighborhood and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by
Council.
3. “The project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its
block-type form.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(B) states: New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established,
or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development
shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
The Appellant states, “The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so
as it ignores how sensitive mass and form promote compatibility.”
The Applicant’s narrative, attached to the staff report, discusses and illustrates the existing
neighborhood character. The Planning and Zoning Board stated, ”I like what the applicant’s team
has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it. This is a nice way to extend the
downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason Corridor come to life and be
functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason, and even across the street,
to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very eclectic architecture
in that neighborhood…very eclectic.” (Page 21, Line 24 – 28 of Verbatim Transcript).
Staff has prepared information regarding the neighborhood character and project compatibility and
is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
144
32 of 465
June 4, 2013
4. “This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive
elements, lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building
mass.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(C) states: Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the
nearest intersection.
The Appellant states: “It [the proposed building] does not relate to street and neighborhood.”
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the
Max Flats Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the
Board for further consideration.”
City Attorney Roy reviewed the City’s appeal process.
Seth Lorson, City Planner, reviewed the proposed project and location and stated the Planning and
Zoning Board approved the project, with four modifications of standard. Additionally, Lorson
reviewed the Notice of Appeal and its allegations.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he attended the site visit in order to obtain a visual aspect of the
property.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he attended the site visit for the same reasons.
Councilmember Troxell noted his comments with respect to the properties to the west and solar
shading issues.
Councilmember Overbeck stated he inspected the property individually.
Councilmember Campana stated he attended the site visit in order to better understand the property’s
physical attributes.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Susan Kruel-Froseth, Appellant, stated the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, Land Use Code, and Charter and cited specific
provisions relating to size, mass, and scale and design elements as well as compatibility. She argued
the Board failed to adequately address compatibility and the related Land Use Code provisions.
145
33 of 465
June 4, 2013
Bruce Froseth, Appellant, argued the neighborhood meeting for the project was held too close to the
Planning and Zoning Board work session and hearing.
OPPONENT PRESENTATION
Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, stated this project is supported by City staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board, the Downtown Development Authority, the Chamber of Commerce, and owners of
neighboring properties. He discussed the project location and cited examples of neighborhood
compatibility.
Eduardo Illanes, Oz Architects, detailed the architectural components of the proposed project.
Jeff Johnson, Counsel for the Developer, discussed the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and
stated this project establishes an excellent precedent for further redevelopment. He argued a fair
hearing was conducted.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Kruel-Froseth stated the first time she heard of the project was in January when the sign was
first posted on the property and argued the neighborhood was not made aware of the project until
that time. She stated this project is one of high visibility and questioned whether this was the type
of tone the City wants to set for the Mason Street Corridor.
OPPONENT REBUTTAL
Mr. Brinkman stated he has met four times with the appellant and has offered enhancements to
materials and detailing.
Mr. Johnson stated this project demonstrates its compliance with the Land Use Code and will be a
project appropriate for the future.
Mr. Illanes discussed the articulation and materials of the proposed building.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding the neighborhood notification
process and opposed the parking situation in the neighborhood.
Mr. Brinkman stated the parking situation should not impact neighbors and opposed a remand to the
Planning and Zoning Board.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Councilmember Cunniff requested the height to width ratio along the north-south axis and asked if
the floodplain requirements actually prohibit residential development on the ground floor, or if those
units must simply be raised above floodplain level. Lorson replied any residential units must be one
or two feet above the floodplain elevation.
146
34 of 465
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked when the effective date for the Ordinance requiring a Planning and
Zoning Board hearing for projects greater than fifty units occurred. Lorson replied the effective date
for that Ordinance was November 30, 2012 and the application date for this project was December
12, 2012.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City had erred by not placing this project into the Type II
review process at that point. Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Director, replied staff was engaged in updating multi-family Land Use Code regulations to better
address some of the community concerns through last fall. A process began last fall requiring multi-
family unit developments over a certain unit size to be required to have a Type II hearing. Prior to
that, projects of that size in certain zones were allowed to have a Type I hearing.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Mr. Brinkman would still be willing to discuss landscape buffering
and other issues with the appellant. Mr. Brinkman replied the 10-inch landscape modification
allowed a parking aisle and added he would be willing to work with the appellant on any
landscaping issues. He discussed some concessions he has made to compromise with the appellants
and mentioned additional items he is willing to change.
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional detail regarding the project transitions mentioned by
Mr. Brinkman. Mr. Brinkman replied he has incorporated a step-back on the fifth floor and has
changed materials per neighbor requests.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) funding and the differences between the east and west sides of the building. Mr. Brinkman
replied the funding went to public improvements in the right-of-way, not to the building facade.
Councilmember Troxell requested a west side rendering showing the Juliet balconies. Mr.
Brinkman described the proposed Juliet balconies on the west facade and stated he would be willing
to include those per neighborhood requests.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the involvement of the City’s Neighborhood Advocate in this
project. Lorson replied the Neighborhood Advocate was present at the neighborhood meeting and
was available as neighbors expressed concerns.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the multi-family versus mixed-use definition. Lorson replied
the new language for the threshold references any residential use consisting in whole or in part.
Kadrich replied the Planning and Zoning Board is discussing this issue as part of its policy
development and stated there is not currently a requirement within the mixed-use definition that
would tie or limit any kind of the mixed-use.
Councilmember Troxell requested a staff comment regarding the benefit, or lack thereof, of
remanding the item to the Planning and Zoning Board. Kadrich replied an earlier neighborhood
meeting would have allowed for earlier consideration of neighborhood opinions.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the neighbor reference to parking. Lorson replied this
project is in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) in which there is no minimum
parking requirement. He stated the parking provided by this project provides about one parking
space per unit, which adequately meets the Land Use Code.
147
35 of 465
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Campana stated the intention of the Ordinance mentioned was to allow more
transparency and citizen input on projects, therefore increasing the threshold for requiring a
neighborhood meeting. He discussed the confusion which could have occurred relating to multi-
family versus mixed-use. He asked if the appellants had a dialogue with the developer or submitted
written materials at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kruel-Froseth replied in the affirmative and
cited the transcript from the meeting.
Councilmember Campana discussed the massing and articulation aspects of the Land Use Code and
requested an interpretation of the one-to-three ratio, which he noted could be interpreted in different
ways. Lorson replied the Land Use Code section states “horizontal masses shall not exceed a
height-width ratio of one-to-three, without substantial variation in massing that includes a change
in height or projecting or recessed elements.” He stated staff’s opinion is that the project provides
substantial variation in massing and meets this section of the Code.
Councilmember Poppaw discussed the lack of articulation on the west side of the building in
comparison to the east side and asked if the developer is willing to make changes to the west side
of the building in order to add articulation and visual interest.
Councilmember Campana stated he would have difficulty requiring additional articulation on the
west elevation based on the Land Use Code. Councilmember Poppaw disagreed and stated the Land
Use Code specifically calls out for the additional articulation.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, that the Planning
and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in its consideration of the MAX Flats Project
Development Plan #120034.
Councilmember Cunniff stated it could be argued the Board was presented with false information
due to the process flaw and therefore may not have given as much consideration to the neighborhood
concerns as it could have.
Councilmember Troxell argued the absence of information is not false information.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the project was submitted two weeks after the Ordinance which
would have required the project to go through a Type II review was in place; therefore, the statement
that the project was caught in the middle of the transition is false.
Councilmember Campana argued the intent of the neighborhood meeting was met.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak argued the Board conducted a fair hearing regardless of the process prior to
the hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell and Poppaw.
Nays: Cunniff and Overbeck.
Councilmember Campana asked if there was a requirement for increased landscaping to compensate
for the modification for the parking aisle. Lorson replied the Planning and Zoning Board discussed
the issue but there is no tool in the Land Use Code to require that type of mitigation.
148
36 of 465
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested that Mr. Brinkman discuss the modifications he would be willing
to make. Mr. Brinkman replied he is willing to provide five additional trees, of the appellants’
choice, in the landscape buffer.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see as many trees as possible in the landscape
buffer area.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the caliper of the trees had been discussed. Mr. Brinkman replied
there is a utility easement in the area which will partially dictate tree location.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the other modifications mentioned were with respect to enhanced
materials and massing compatibility. Mr. Brinkman replied he would be willing to add the Juliet
balconies, though they are not required, and he would be willing to add a tower element in the
middle of the west elevation to aid in concerns regarding massing; however, other neighbors have
opposed the tower element due to the increase in height.
Councilmember Cunniff requested input regarding the tower design from the appellants. Ms. Kruel-
Froseth replied this is the first time she has heard about the tower and stated there have been no
specific discussions relating to the landscape buffer. She stated she would like to see all sides of the
building contain materials and design characteristics consistent with the front of the building.
Councilmember Cunniff supported varying the height of the building in order to provide interest.
Councilmember Campana expressed concern regarding re-designing the project at this point.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see a compromise reached between the parties and
asked if the materials to be used on the back side of the building are of lesser quality than those on
the Mason Street side. Mr. Brinkman replied the materials are the same from the second floor up.
The pedestrian level is mostly brick on the front and side; however, those elements are not there on
the back side of the building as there is no pedestrian element.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to modify the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the MAX Flats Project Development Plan #120034 by
adding the following conditions: five trees will be added to the landscape buffer along the west side,
Juliet balconies will be added, the tower element will be added, and consistent materials will be used
around the entire building. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 084, 2013
Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a
Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way
and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River
District Block One Mixed Use Development, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
149
37 of 465
June 4, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Encompass”) is a mixed use
development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The
property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC (“LB LLC”). Several easements are required for this
project. These easement interests are needed for improvements in the right-of-way, bank
stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Encompass is a mixed use development at 418 Linden consisting of one building with two floors of
office space, two floors of apartments (12 units) and a restaurant. The first floor of this building has
a walk-way to the rear of the lot. The O’Neil family is developing the property. Their software
company, Encompass Technologies will occupy the second floor. The property is held in the name
of Linden Bridges LLC.
Encompass looked at plans to relocate to a larger space and instead chose to develop a new office
as part of a mixed-use development as a long-term investment in downtown Fort Collins. The site
at 418 Linden provides a great opportunity for Encompass to create a vibrant mixed-use
development that connects downtown Fort Collins to the Cache la Poudre River.
This project embodies the character and vision of the City Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the
2001 Poudre River Master Plan, and the R-D-R zone district for high quality redevelopment in
downtown with river interface that is envisioned for the Downtown River Redevelopment District.
Easements Requested by Encompass:
The properties affected by these requests include the property between the development site and the
Poudre River. The City owns the top of the bank, which was acquired 30 years ago for a
recreational trail, the river bank and the land under the river. In the end, the trail was constructed
on the other side of the River and the City will not utilize this site as a trail in the future. The City
property has not been maintained for years. All easement requests are shown on the Easement
Exhibit, Attachment 2.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Encroachment Easement (shown in green on Easement Exhibit):
This easement would be made up of several easement areas located in the right of way. Since
permanent improvements are being constructed in the right-of-way, it is appropriate to grant a
permanent easement instead of a revocable permit. Encompass will have a permanent right to use
these improvements in perpetuity. The City cannot cancel or terminate this easement; only
Encompass could request to have this easement vacated. If the City determined it needed the land
under the improvements, it would need to enter into negotiations with the owner to purchase this
easement interest. In the Easement Agreement, Encompass will be required to carry property and
liability insurance and will need to have the City added as additional insured.
There is a significant change in grade along Linden Street. This creates the need for an upper and
lower sidewalk similar to properties downtown. Thus some of the permanent features requiring
easements are a ramp, stairs and a planter box. In addition, Encompass has requested an outdoor
deck along Linden Street for the restaurant. The restaurant will also have two decks on their
property with a river view. Having the deck along Linden Street is a key urban design element.
150
38 of 465
June 4, 2013
Permanent Non-Exclusive Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement (shown in yellow
on Easement Exhibit):
This easement abuts the development site and includes a strip of land from the top of the river bank,
to the water’s edge. The river bank needs to be stabilized and this project plans include
reconstruction approximately 160 feet of the river bank to meet the design criteria for a 100 year
flood event. Included with the bank stabilization are two decorative retaining walls.
Additional improvements are being completed by Encompass along the bank as per the City’s
Poudre River Enhancement Plan. This work is a benefit to both the development and the City by
providing additional stabilization of the banks and improved scour protection for the Linden Street
bridge. Encompass will complete all the construction. When the work is complete and approved
by Stormwater Utilities, the City will repay Encompass for river enhancement work that benefits the
City from a combination of Stormwater Funds and Bridge Engineering Funds.
As per the Land Use Code, the project is required to provide a continuous buffer and a walking path
along the top of the bank. It is planned to build the buffer and path on the development site and the
City-owned property. The easement grants Encompass access for the path and its users.
Encompass will maintain all improvements located in this easement area, with the exception of the
bridge protection. After acceptance of the work by the City, the City will maintain the bridge
protection. The City will not perform maintenance on the trail in the easement area. The City’s
public trail is on the other side of the River.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement (shown in yellow and outlined in red on Easement
Exhibit);
Encompass is requesting a permanent 20-foot wide drainage easement to carry their development
flows, as well as the flows from the property to the south, from their water quality pond, in an
eighteen-inch pipe under the City’s property to the Poudre River. This easement location is in part
of the Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement, but we requested a separate
legal description for this use.
Temporary Construction Easement (shown on Temporary Easement Exhibit):
The above easement gives Encompass the right to do their bank stabilization work; however, they
need to be able to access the bank from the Poudre River. In order to complete work in the River,
a Floodplain Use Permit is required. Encompass has met with the Floodplain Administrator on site
and an access area has been identified. The preferred access point goes through the Encompass
site and goes through a break in trees on the City property to access the River. This area is shown
on the Temporary Easement Exhibit, Attachment 3. There will be very minimal disturbance in the
river bed. The banks will only be disturbed in the areas of the Construction, Access and
Maintenance Easement. All disturbed areas along construction access from top of bank to the River
shall be revegetated per approved landscape plans.
The area of the Temporary Construction Easement extends upriver under the bridge and adjacent
to the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. Encompass will construct a temporary upstream
and downstream coffer dam and pump in the Temporary Construction Easement area. Downstream
there is an area where the river is separated by a stretch of land. The temporary coffer dam will
divert the River to the eastern side of the land and they will also install a pump in low point
discharge on other side of island.
151
39 of 465
June 4, 2013
The duration of the requested Temporary Construction Easement will start when our Easement
Agreement is signed and will continue to December 31, 2014. The work is planned to be in intervals
and this is not a consecutive time period. While the Temporary Construction Easement does give
them permission to enter our property, they will also need a current Floodplain Use Permit to
access the Temporary Construction Easement area. At the meeting held in May with Stormwater
staff, it was determined that work in the River cannot commence until the end of September of 2013
due to the high river conditions this year.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Landscape Easement (shown in orange on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested a Non-Exclusive Permanent Landscape Easement to landscape a 2,206
square-foot area adjacent to their property to improve the view for their project. The strip of land
is southeast of the Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement area and goes to the current
top of bank. This area is currently not maintained and does not contain much vegetation.
Encompass submitted a landscape plan during the approval process of the development. This
landscape plan was approved and determined to meet the criteria of the Land Use Code 4.17 – River
Landscape Buffers.
Revocable Permit (shown in purple on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested the right to come into the large purple shaded area on the Easement
Exhibit to trim the existing trees. The trees are not well maintained and contain numerous dead
branches. Encompass wants to trim these trees to improve the view of the river to users of the
development. The requested Revocable Permit is for twenty (20) years unless revoked sooner, and
will allow trimming of trees, but not tree removal.
Along with the Revocable Permit, Encompass must meet with the Forestry Department to agree on
which trees can be trimmed. Once Encompass gets the official permission from Forestry, the tree
company doing the trimming will need to obtain a permit from Forestry to do the actual trimming.
In addition, since this is in a floodplain, Encompass will be required to obtain a Floodplain Use
Permit for each time they do any trimming activities.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Encroachment Easements. These easements are located in the right of way. Currently the City does
not have an adequate policy in place on how to process or value permanent easements in the public
right of way. Encroachment Permits are charged $10/year and permanent easements on City-
owned properties are compensated at fair market value. Staff will be bringing an Ordinance to
Council in the next few months with a recommendation on how to process and value easements in
the right of way. Until a policy is established, compensation will be based on fair market value.
Staff has set a value for the encroachment easements requested. Values on Linden Street have
increased dramatically over the last two years. The price per square foot assigned for these
easements is an average of the last two properties sold. That value is $19.50 per square foot.
The encroachment easements for the stairs with handrails and the ramp will typically be used not
only for occupants or customers of Encompass, but could also be used by the general public. For
this reason, the easement percentage of value is 50% and the easement value for these areas is
$5,099.00.
152
40 of 465
June 4, 2013
The easement percentage of value for the encroachment easement for the outdoor patio deck is 75%.
That is because the general public will not have any use in this area unless they are customers of
the restaurant. The easement value for the patio deck is $8,350.00, or $13,449.00 for both areas.
Developer will be charged $13,449.00 for the Encroachment Easement; however, if the City
Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a policy for granting of easements in the City’s
rights of way, including charges therefor, Encompass will instead pay compensation for the
Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449.00.
Compensation for the Encroachment Easement is not due until the new policy is adopted or
December 31, 2013.
Other Easements: The City’s practice is to charge for easements on estimated market value.
Market values for properties are estimated on a wide range of criteria including, the zoning,
topography, physical constraints and overall use of the property. After considering the above
criteria and consulting with area appraisers, staff set the market value for the City parcels at $5,000
per acre. It is difficult to set a value for properties within floodplains because there are not many
comparable sales. These properties are usually purchased by government entities for preservation.
The appraisers compared these properties to highly restricted conservation easement properties.
The values recommended by the appraisers range from $3,500 to $5,000/acre. The exception is in
the Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. Approximately half of its area is in the FEMA
Moderate Risk Floodplain. Generally there is not a deduction for the developable value because
it is relatively inexpensive to cure. This small area would not be developable on its own; however,
since this area is being used to enhance the development of the adjacent property, the value of this
area would be about 50% of developable market value, or $10 per square foot.
Using this data, staff has determined a value of $17,675.00 for the Construction, Access,
Maintenance Easement and the Drainage Easement, the Landscape Easement, the Temporary
Construction Easement, and the Revocable Permit. It is staff’s recommendation that we do not
charge Encompass for these easements because the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping
improvements and tree trimming provide benefits to the City that exceed the value of the
easements.”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, discussed the development proposal for 418 Linden
Street and stated the street encroachment easement would allow for an improved urban design
setting and the river easement would provide the opportunity to enhance the river edge.
Helen Matson, Real Estate Service Manager, detailed the easements and their locations.
Hendee discussed the emergence of the Downtown River District area and new proposed
developments in the area, including an enhanced streetscape.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Natural Areas staff or other ornithologists will be involved in
the tree trimming process. Hendee replied in the affirmative and stated the City Forester and
Planning and Natural Areas staff will be involved.
Councilmember Cunniff noted the City is going to reimburse the developer for improvements in the
former natural area and requested an estimate of that amount. Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering
Field Operations Manager, replied some of the planned work along the river bank includes long term
plans from the Poudre River Enhancement Plan and is being treated like a developer re-pay
153
41 of 465
June 4, 2013
estimated at around $100,000, or 40% of the total cost. The amount will be shared between Bridge,
Engineering, and Stormwater.
Councilmember Cunniff requested information regarding the slope of the area to be reinforced by
the retaining walls. Haukaas replied the slope is currently quite steep and the reinforcement through
retaining walls involves anchoring at the base and landscaping which will ultimately cover most of
the wall.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 084, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated this property is valuable due to its proximity to the River corridor
and its riparian habitat and expressed concern that the City does not charge for this portion of the
easement. He suggested a fee for this portion of the easement be developed prior to Second
Reading.
Councilmember Campana asked about the value of the property. Matson replied the value of the
property is based on market value and the current use of the property; it does not currently have a
great deal of monetary value.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern that this would set a precedent that the City does not
charge for this land. Matson replied the principle used to determine market value would be used on
another easement; however, it would be up to staff and Council to determine whether or not the
benefits would outweigh the need to charge.
Councilmember Troxell stated this project enhances the Poudre River and the community’s access
to the River.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated Council needs to hold a work session regarding the River area and
stated the valuation of land should be examined in values other than monetary.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, for staff
to create two options for Second Reading, one as written and one including a fee for the land to be
purchased by the project.
Councilmember Troxell argued the City is gaining a public benefit.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion to amend and argued no precedent would
be set.
Councilmember Poppaw supported bringing forth both options.
Councilmembers Cunniff and Overbeck withdrew the motion to amend.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the Ordinance and commended staff work and the presentation
regarding the item.
154
42 of 465
June 4, 2013
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 084, 2013, on First Reading, was as follows: Yeas:
Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw, Campana and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Cunniff received support from additional Councilmembers to request that staff
bring forth a second option regarding charging for the land on Second Reading.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested an update regarding discounted Transfort passes at various social
agencies. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, replied Transfort
does sell passes to social agencies at a discounted rate and is contacting agencies to determine what
they need.
Councilmember Poppaw supported a work session on the topic, given the potential negative effect
of these purchases on agency budgets.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adjourn to June 11,
2013 so that the Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council,
including a possible Executive Session to conduct the mid-year reviews of the three direct report
employees of the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
155
43 of 465
June 18, 2013
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, June 18, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Campana, Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the payment of junk bond interest by taxpayers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 21, 2013 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste
Innovation Program.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, shifts $135,560 that
has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program’s reserve account into the City’s General
Fund account so that the money can be used for the purposes intended. Revenues are paid
into the Waste Innovation Program by City departments that “self haul” trash from
municipal operations for disposal in the Larimer County Landfill. The fund is designated to
pay for projects that enhance these same departments’ ability to divert more waste away
from the landfill. Unspent funds from several previous years had been moved into a
“reserve” account; this action moves the funds back into the General Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from
the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant
Project for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
44 165 of 465
June 18, 2013
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, appropriates funds
received from a State of Colorado grant totaling $17,881. The grant funds will be used to
enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the increased risk of flooding caused
by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used for the match of $5,960.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and
the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, authorizes the use
of a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area as match towards a
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act grant, as well as management funds currently
obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent
as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will
expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work
to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds
that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority
species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to
the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both
Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential
developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land
to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to
require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and, in 2011, the Poudre School District reduced fee
amounts by 11 percent. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4,
2013, will increase the amount of the fees the District receives by 6.9 percent. The School
District is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values
and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School
Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry
Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge
Natural Area.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm
Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel
within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge
are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased
by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of
the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency
has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current
leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases
with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals
45 166 of 465
June 18, 2013
process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, authorizes
dryland farm leases to Harry Sauer on these areas. The new leases have a higher lease rate
and more contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the
McKee parcel will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely
restored to native grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, adopted by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) on First Reading on June 4,
2013, designates the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins
Landmark. The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating
this request.
13. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance
of Four Easements, a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City
Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River
District Block One Mixed Use Development to July 2, 2013.
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development is a mixed use
development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a
restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC. Several easements are required
for this project for improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and river
enhancement, drainage and landscape areas. The Developer has requested that Second
Reading of this Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of easements, be postponed until July
2, 2013, due to scheduling conflicts with the developer and the consultant.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable
Housing and Related Activities.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $3,169 as the 2012
payments for public services and facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund those
payments, also known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), to fund sorely needed
affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort
Collins residents.
Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT
payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in
accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council
determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has annually
remitted the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association.
The Natural Areas Department intends to formalize its verbal agreement with Paragon
Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) for access across an existing two-track road off
46 167 of 465
June 18, 2013
Trilby Road to the HOA’s pumphouse. The pumphouse is located within an existing
irrigation easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The HOA’s current access has
minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional impacts are anticipated. Access would
be solely for maintenance and operation of the facilities associated with the existing
irrigation easement. No other access rights are to be conveyed.
16. Resolution 2013-054 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of
the April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Max Flats Project
Development Plan.
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application
for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. On May 2, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed
seeking to modify the approval.
On June 4, 2013, City Council voted 5-2 (Nays: Cunniff, Overbeck)concluding that the
evidence presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, nor did
it substantially ignore its previously established rules of procedure. City Council voted 7–0
that the Planning and Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code in
approving the Plan, but that, based upon information presented to the City Council on
appeal, the City Council determined that the decision of the Board should be modified by
the addition of the following conditions of approval:
a. Five trees must be planted along the west side boundary of the property.
b. Juliet balconies must be installed along the west side of the building as shown on the
elevation presented to the City Council on appeal.
c. The tower elements must be added to the building as shown on the elevation
presented to the City Council on appeal.
d. All materials cladding the building must be consistent on all elevations around the
building.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste
Innovation Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from
the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant
Project for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
168
47 of 465
June 18, 2013
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and
the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to
the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry
Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge
Natural Area.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable
Housing and Related Activities.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 16, Resolution 2013-054 Making Findings of Fact and
Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of
the Max Flats Project Development Plan, from the Consent Calendar.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 10, Second Reading of Ordinance No.
080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained
in Such Agreement, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Horak, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2013-054
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the
April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Max Flats
Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
169
48 of 465
June 18, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for the
Max Flats, Project Development Plan. On May 2, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed seeking to
modify the approval.
On June 4, 2013, City Council voted 5-2 (Nays: Cunniff, Overbeck) concluding that the evidence
presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, nor did it substantially
ignore its previously established rules of procedure. City Council voted 7–0 that the Planning and
Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied the Land Use Code in approving the Plan, but that,
based upon information presented to the City Council on appeal, the City Council determined that
the decision of the Board should be modified by the addition of the following conditions of approval:
a. Five trees must be planted along the west side boundary of the property.
b. Juliet balconies must be installed along the west side of the building as shown on the
elevation presented to the City Council on appeal.
c. The tower elements must be added to the building as shown on the elevation presented to the
City Council on appeal.
d. All materials cladding the building must be consistent on all elevations around the building.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making
findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence was substantially false and grossly
misleading and that it substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. The
Appellant also alleged that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.”
Councilmember Cunniff stated the intent of one of the conditions was to ensure the materials
cladding the non-street sides of the building were of the same quality as the materials cladding the
street side.
Seth Lorson, City Planner, stated the materials are already consistent on all sides of the building.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the inclusion of brick on one side of the building. Lorson
replied the brick wraps around the north side of the building to the east side along the commercial
element of the building. The east side of the building is an open parking structure at the ground
level and the higher levels are consistent with the front side of the building.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the intent of Council and the topic of the discussion related to the
use of the same high-quality brick as on the Mason Street side of the building elevation on all
stories. Lorson replied that may need to be clarified in the language.
City Attorney Roy suggested language for the Resolution.
170
49 of 465
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2013-054, as amended with the suggested language. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-Up
Councilmember Cunniff noted Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing
the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Access Easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to
Paragon Estates Homeowners Association, was also passed unanimously by the Land Conservation
Stewardship Board.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell reported on the ribbon-cutting for an exhibit at the Global Village Museum.
Resolution 2013-055
Concerning the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and its Tax Increment
Revenue Refunding Bonds (North College Avenue Project), Series 2013,
Declaring the City Council’s Present Intent to Appropriate Funds to Replenish
the Reserve Fund Securing Such Bonds, If Necessary; and Authorizing a Cooperation
Agreement and Other Actions Taken in Connection Therewith, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The URA intends to refinance a portion of the debt it originally borrowed from the City in relation
to the North College area. Now that an established revenue stream can be shown to investors,
private money can be used to replace City money. The 2013 bonds require the URA to establish a
debt reserve fund. To further facilitate the credit rating on the replacement debt, the City Council
is asked to adopt the Resolution expressing the Council’s intent to replenish the debt reserve fund
if such funds are ever used to make debt payments. With this Resolution, the new URA debt is
expected to have an effective interest rate of 3.3%.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The North College URA Project Area was created in 2004, allowing the URA to receive incremental
property taxes through 2029. Property tax increment revenue in North College was first received
in 2007 and the 2012 property taxes payable in 2013 are expected to be $1.3 million.
Table 1 - Net Property Tax Increment Revenue $000’s
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 *
$110 $287 $263 $493 $536 $907 $1,285
*anticipated
171
50 of 465
June 18, 2013
A common measure used by lenders in determining risk is the ratio of pledged revenue to debt
service, called a coverage ratio. Investors want that ratio to be high – at least 125%. The current
revenue of $1.3 million could support up to $1 million a year in debt service. The proposed
maximum annual debt service of $919,000 yields a good coverage ratio of 142%.
City Loans to URA
The initial financing model adopted for North College has the City providing initial capital through
a loan until the tax increment revenue reaches a maturity level that can support external financing
to third party investors. The City Council first authorized an Interagency Loan Policy in December
2008, with the most recent amendments approved in December 2012.
Eight loans have been made by the City to the URA in the North College District. The first loan has
been repaid. Table 2 recaps the current status of the loans.
Table 2 – North College Loan Status $000’s
Date Project
Original
Value
Current
Balance
Term
Years Rate City Fund Holding
09/2006 Valley Steel, URA start-
up funds
$ 150 $ 0 5 5.55% General Fund
05/2009 North College Market
Place, Phase 1
5,000 4,729 20 2.85% Capital Expansion
12/2010 JAX 173 106 5 2.50% Capital Expansion
06/2011 NEECO 326 326 10 3.01% Storm Drainage
07/2011 Kaufman Robinson 193 193 5 2.46% General Fund
07/2011 North College Market
Place, Phase 2
3,000 2,884 19 4.09% Water Fund
08/2012 North College Road
Improvements
2,700 2,700 18 3.92% Capital Projects
BCC
Loans to be refinanced 11,542 10,938 3.44% Weighted average
06/2009 RMI2 5,304 5,304 20 2.50% General Fund
Total North College
Area
16,846 16,242
The proposal is to issue enough debt to take out $10.94 million in loans to the City, plus interest and
debt issue costs. For the following reasons the City loan to the URA that relates to RMI is not being
refinanced.
• The use of the RMI2 loan proceeds does not qualify the interest to be tax exempt. Therefore
the interest rate would be significantly higher.
• The new market tax credit deal cannot be refinanced until 2017.
• There is not enough revenue capacity to meet external investor expectations. Only about $1
million of the $5.3 million could be considered for refinancing if the favorable coverage
ratio was to be preserved.
The General Fund is holding the URA loan relating to the RMI2. Later this year the loan will be
reallocated and held equally between the Water Fund and Capital Expansion Fund. This will free
172
51 of 465
June 18, 2013
up some monies in the General Fund. Future debt payments by the URA will then be allocated
appropriately to each fund.
Preliminary Structure of 2013 Bonds
Approximately $11.4 million of bond proceeds will be used to takeout $10.94 million of debt to the
City, plus interest of $254,000, and pay debt issue costs of $206,000. Coupon interest rates vary
from 2% for near term bonds and 4% for longer term bonds. The collective Net Interest Cost is
expected to be 3.3%, which compares favorably to 3.44% weighted average interest rate on the City
debt being retired. Future annual payments will vary from $914,000 to $919,000 through 2029.
City Intent to Replenish Reserves
The Underwriters for the 2013 Bonds have recommended that a debt service reserve fund in the
amount of approximately $920,000 would be advisable for marketing the 2013 Bonds and that
purchasing a Surety Policy for such amount would be preferable to funding such reserve with cash.
The cost of such Surety Policy would be $55,000. If it was ever necessary to draw upon the Surety
Policy, the City’s replenishment would repay such draw. Staff prefers the Surety Policy option but
will make a decision later based on the potential impact on the credit rating. The City I snot legally
bound to replenish the reserve fund and it would be subject to annual appropriation of funds by the
City Council in its sole discretion. Sherman & Howard will issue a legal opinion that the City can
make this non-binding commitment.
It is anticipated that the City’s non-binding commitment will result in the replacement debt receiving
a credit rating of Aa3. Without this, and a proven revenue stream, the interest rate would likely be
5% or higher rather than 3.3%.
Authority to Adopt the Resolution
Through the adoption of the URA Resolution, the Urban Renewal Authority is issuing property tax
increment revenue bonds to refinance loans made by the City to the URA. The loans that are being
refinanced by the issuance of those bonds were made by the City to finance public infrastructure.
No private improvements were financed through the loans. In order to enhance the marketability
of the bonds that are being issued by the URA, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution pursuant to which the City Council would indicate that, if the reserve fund for the bonds
is ever drawn upon, the City Council will consider appropriating funds to replenish the reserve fund.
This is not a legally binding obligation but rather is subject to appropriation by the Council, when
and if the reserve fund is drawn upon. (This has sometimes been referred to as a “moral obligation
pledge”.)
Since the City cannot be compelled to appropriate funds under this approach, the Resolution and
related documents do not create a debt for purposes of the City Charter or the Colorado
Constitution.
A question has been raised by a local citizen as to whether Council actions such as the making of
this non-bindling commitment violates certain provisions of the City Charter. The Charter
provisions in question read as follows:
173
52 of 465
June 18, 2013
ARTICLE V. FINANCE ADMINISTRATION
PART I. BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Section 15. Appropriations forbidden.
No appropriation shall be made for any charitable, industrial, educational, or
benevolent purposes to any person, corporation, or organization not under the
absolute control of the city, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or
association.
(Ord. No. 10, 1991, § 1(a), 2-19-91, approved, election 4-2-91)
Section 16. City not to pledge credit.
The city shall not lend or pledge its credit or faith, directly or indirectly, or in any
manner to or in aid of any private person or entity for any amount or any purpose
whatever, or become responsible for any debt, contract, or liability thereof.
(Ord. No. 203, 1986, § 1, Part D, 12-16-86, approved, election 3-3-87; Ord. No. 10,
1991, § 1(a), 2-19-91, approved, election 4-2-91)
These charter provisions are, in all material respects, identical to provisions contained in the
Colorado Constitution. Thus, the limitations contained in the Charter provisions apply to all
Colorado municipalities through the state constitution.
In response to the concerns that have been expressed, staff has conferred with both the City
Attorney’s Office and the City’s bond counsel to ensure that the proposed transaction does not
violate either of the provisions in question. Legal counsel has confirmed the following:
Article V, Section 15 of the City Charter is not applicable in this situation because (1) the Urban
Renewal Authority is under the absolute control of the City (since its governing body is made up of
the same members as the City’s governing body) and it is not a denominational or sectarian
institution; and (2) the projects refinanced by the bonds are public infrastructure projects; thus, the
bond proceeds are not being used, either directly or indirectly, for a charitable, industrial,
educational or benevolent purpose.
Article V, Section 16 of the City Charter is not applicable because: (1) the Urban Renewal Authority
is a public entity; (2) the City would not incur any indebtedness or other legally binding obligation
by taking the proposed action; and (3) as noted above, the projects refinanced by the bonds are
public infrastructure projects,.
It should be noted that the financing structure being recommended by staff is not unique to the City.
Other municipalities that have utilized this same procedure in connection with tax increment
transactions include the City and County of Denver, the cities of Thornton, Westminster, and
Steamboat Springs, and the Town of Avon. The State of Colorado has also used this type of
financing structures for housing, charter schools and higher education.
174
53 of 465
June 18, 2013
Future Financing Model
City staff have communicated to the URA that, going forward, the City intends to only loan money
when alternative financing agreements are not feasible. The reimbursement agreement recently
approved for Aspen Heights is an example of the preferred approach for future development
agreements. The Aspen Heights developer will be reimbursed over time as revenue is collected,
rather than in a lump sum upon completion of the project.
Consultants
The URA and City have engaged three firms to help issue the new debt: Sherman & Howard as the
Bond Attorney, BLX as the Financial Advisor and RBC Capital Markets as the Bond Underwriters.
Timeline
June 24 Publish Preliminary Official Statement on Internet Sites
July 9-10 Market Bonds
July 23 Closing
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Property tax revenue in the North College URA plan area is unlikely to decline enough to trigger
the use of the Debt Service Reserve Fund.
The 2013 Bonds will be used to takeout $10.94 million in debt to the City, pay $254,000 of interest
and pay $206,000 in delivery date expenses.
Later this summer the City will use some of the returned monies to loan $5 million to the URA for
the first Midtown Project – The Summit (Capstone).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Council Finance Committee reviewed and tentatively approved the refinancing and the concept
of a Council Resolution regarding a debt reserve replenishment pledge at its meeting on December
17, 2012 and again on May 20, 2013. “
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, briefly introduced the item.
John Voss, Controller, discussed the refinance and stated this item would provide a moral obligation
pledge to help enhance the credit of the URA. He discussed the North College TIF district.
Adoption of this Resolution would enable the City to pledge to consider replenishing the URA
reserve fund. He noted this process may be new to Fort Collins but it has occurred in other Colorado
municipalities.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the City has already approved the moral obligation
pledge. He opposed the URA tax increment financing arrangement.
175
54 of 465
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff requested an estimate of the date for the return of funds to the General
Fund. Beckstead replied the intent would be to do that in the fall, though it could be done earlier
if needed.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested staff input regarding the reason for taking this action. Beckstead
replied a great deal of due diligence goes into a process such as this prior to the item coming before
Council, including getting a credit rating on the offering. This allows quick execution of the
transaction as quickly as possible after Council approval. He stated there was no representation that
Council had approved the moral obligation pledge. He discussed the methodology used by the
County for URAs.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt
Resolution 2013-055.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the Finance Committee reviewed the item and recommend approval.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Troxell, Poppaw, Overbeck and Cunniff.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 080, 2013,
Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu
Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre
School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a
school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for
development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is
authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and, in 2011, the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts
by 11 percent. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, will
increase the amount of the fees the District receives by 6.9 percent. The School District is requesting
an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This
fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson
School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Poudre School District is building a school in Timnath
and it is being funded by all the citizens in Timnath, with the exception of those living in the Urban
Renewal Authority. He opposed the way in which the County Assessor has been diverting a portion
of Poudre School District’s revenues to Urban Renewal Authorities.
176
55 of 465
June 18, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080-2013, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he is interested in ultimately affecting legislation change.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Troxell discussed construction of the new Xcel pipeline. He suggested a more
formal agreement should be put in place regarding dispute resolution in order to avoid potential
long-term costs being incurred by the City. City Manager Atteberry replied he will follow up with
Xcel and look into the possibility of creating such an agreement.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
177
56 of 465
June 11, 2013
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, June 11,
2013, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Troxell, and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Items Relating to the Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy
Center of Hope, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2013-053 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with United
Way of Larimer County for Funding of Operations at the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center
of Hope.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund to Be Used for Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
The City has received a request for funding in the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Sister
Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope, from January to July, 2013 (six months). Other funding
partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and Serve 6.8 ($35,000).
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for
homeless and near homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important component in the
community’s network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-
lived and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope (“Murphy Center”)
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for
homeless and near homeless persons; approximately 23 agencies provide services at the Center;
the Center also provides showers, breakfast, phones/computers, washers/dryers, clothing, day
shelter services, and more. Services available at the Center include employment resources, housing
assistance, financial counseling, transportation assistance, mental health and substance abuse
156
57 of 465
June 11, 2013
counseling, and more. Many believe that the Center is one of the most innovative facilities in the
nation for serving the homeless and near homeless. The Murphy Center is currently owned by the
United Way of Larimer County (UW) and operated by Touchstone Health Partners of Fort Collins.
During the past four years, the Murphy Center has been a major player in the local homeless service
delivery system and will play an even more critical role as the region moves toward a new and
improved housing model. Notable achievements of the Center include:
• Total number of visits: 110,782.
• Now averaging 156 visitors per day, up from 80 at the end of the 1st year.
• Now have 23 different agencies that provide services out of the Center.
• Total number of showers taken: 12,841.
• Total number of loads of laundry done: 4,649.
• Total number of unduplicated people provided services by a Resource Specialist: 10,148.
• 37% of the people served are part of a family with children.
• In 2012, 77% of the people that meet with a Resource Specialist report being literally
homeless, a 57% increase from 2011.
• Received mail through the center: more than 800 people.
• Utilized lockers at the center: more than 250 people.
• Provided voicemail boxes: more than 150 people.
• 429 people have been assisted in getting Food Stamps.
• 106 people have been assisted in getting Aid to the Needy.
• 253 people have been assisted in getting Medicaid.
• 879 people have received mental health and/or substance abuse services.
• 1,312 households have received emergency rent assistance.
• 2,507 households have received utility assistance.
The approximate $2.5M cost of construction of the Center was funded through a collaboration of
private foundations, private resources, and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Since 2004, the
City has contributed approximately $90,000 in CDBG and General Fund dollars to build the
facility, and as such has a legal and financial interest. In addition, the City has funded several of
the agencies that occupy the Center. As equity partners on the land (along with the City of
Loveland), City staff has met with United Way and Serve 6.8 officials. Our goal, moving forward,
is a smooth transition on executing new legal documents, and ensuring that parameters for property
use tied to federal funding are clear. One of these parameters includes federal limitations on
inherently religious activities such as worship, religions instruction, or proselytization. We are also
interested in being sure that the Murphy Center has a critical role to play in the future in the
“Continuum of Care” for the homeless and near homeless.
Ownership and Operations of the Center
The Murphy Center opened in March, 2009. At that time, the United Way (UW) committed to
owning/funding/operating the Center for one year, hoping to find someone who would take over
operations of the Center from United Way in year two. Funding was secure for the first three years
of operation, until March 2012; the Center was originally intended to be transferred debt free. The
original plan was for Touchstone Health Partners to take over the facility, and over several years,
plans for the transition were discussed. Last March 2012, those plans started to fall apart when
Touchstone announced it was no longer interested in taking over the Center. Subsequently, United
157
58 of 465
June 11, 2013
Way had to search for a new owner/operator. UW had serious but unsuccessful discussions with
several potential agencies about taking over the facility, including but not limited to, Catholic
Charities and the Salvation Army. UW was also left with the challenge of more than $180,000 in
additional expenses to continue operations of the facility. United Way had to use general reserves
not intended for this purpose while it searched for a new partner. United Way also seriously
considered closing or curtailing services at the Center when reserve funding ran out in December
2012. Instead, United Way chose to keep the Center operating and sought community partners to
cover the $180,000 in extra costs.
Last November, a small group of interested stakeholders met to discuss the future of the Murphy
Center. The group consisted of Gordan Thibedeau (United Way), Randy Ratliff (CEO Touchstone
Health Partners), Cheryl Zimlich (Bohemian Foundation), Alison Hade, City of Loveland
(Community Partnership Department), Julie Brewen (FCHA), Bryce Hach (Homeward 2020), and
Joe Frank (Social Sustainability Department). Last January, the group met with Mark Orphan,
Pastor of the Timberline Church Missions and Outreach program, and Mike Walker, Timberline
Church Local Outreach Director, about potentially taking ownership and operation of the Center.
Serve 6.8 is the “community service” arm of the Timberline Church. “Serve 6.8” is in reference to
two passages in the bible (Micah and Isaiah). Serve 6.8's stated mission is “people serving our
community to demonstrate God’s love in tangible ways to people in Northern Colorado with no
strings attached.” Serve 6.8 has said “We partner with many local organizations to promote their
mission, provide volunteers, and offer assistance.” Serve 6.8 has been involved in a variety of
“ministries” and partnerships in the community, some involving the homeless. Serve 6.8 was
heavily involved in the High Park Fire recovery efforts. Serve 6.8 now has 501(c)3 status, and is
a separate entity from the Timberline Church.
Serve 6.8 submitted a letter of intent to assume ownership and operation of the Murphy Center, and
most appear to be comfortable with them. United Way is satisfied that it has the resources and
mission to take over and successfully operate the facility. Mark Orphan and Mike Walker will be
the primary managers of the Murphy Center. They indicated that the Center will continue to deliver
current services and will keep the current professional staff. Serve 6.8 will also be using volunteers.
At this time, Serve 6.8 is doing its due diligence, developing a business plan, completing necessary
agreements, talking with the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, etc. Serve 6.8 has said that they
have recently embarked on a fund raising campaign for the Murphy Center, with a goal of $5
million; having already raised about $750,000. The goal is to complete the ownership/operation
transition on/around July 1, 2013.
The United Way and Serve 6.8 has been very transparent in the transition process, including
involving key stakeholders early on, working with existing Murphy Center staff, presenting to the
North Fort Collins Business Association, informing Murphy Center customers, working with staff
from the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, informing Murphy Center funders, informing
Timberline Church members, and providing interviews and information to the local press.
UW/Serve 6.8 intends to do additional outreach when the transfer of ownership/operation finally
occurs, and Serve 6.8 has indicated that they plan to hold a formal “opening” event later this year,
possibly as part of National Homeless Month.
An article of the Murphy Center written by Sarah Jane Kyle, and published in the June 2, 1013
Coloradoan on the Murphy Center transition is attached (Attachment 1)
158
59 of 465
June 11, 2013
Funding Request
The United Way is seeking funding partners to continue the operation of the facility. The Center’s
monthly operating cost is about $38,600; approximately 85% of that is personnel and 15% is
operations. United Way has a federal grant that covers about $8,100 per month; the net monthly
cost is approximately $30,500. Six months of operations costs approximately $183,000. United
Way’s proposal is that it provides $58,000, the Bohemian Foundation and the City each provide
$45,000 and Serve 6.8 provides $35,000, for the operation of the Murphy Center from January to
July, 2013 (6 months). The City of Loveland was approached to participate in funding but declined;
less than 10% of the Murphy Center visitors are from Loveland, and because the participation is
so low, it declined to participate in the one-time funding of operations.
According to Gordan Thibedeau, Executive Director of the United Way:
“There are two reasons that we are seeking continuation funds to support the
operation of the Murphy Center. First, it was our intent to transfer ownership no
later than December 31, 2012, which did not happen. Second, we have been unable
to secure additional grant funding to support the operation primarily because we
play a “pass through” role. We were able to overcome this concern for the first 4
years of funding but foundations have become increasingly interested in having the
funds go directly to the service provider.”
Funding Alternatives
During the May 28 Work Session, Council specifically asked staff to consider making the funds
available to a different agency (not United Way) that could potentially benefit from leveraging the
City funds. There are four alternatives that the City Council could consider to fund the operations
of the Murphy Center:
A. “United Way” Option - Approve the original funding request to United Way in the amount
of $45,000, for operating expenses incurred between January 1 and June 31, 2013. The
funds would go directly to United Way for additional expenses they incurred to continue the
operation of the facility.
B. “Touchstone” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the
direct recipient of the funds being Touchstone Health Partners, for operating expenses
incurred between January 1 and June 31, 2013. The funds would go directly to Touchstone
Health Partners for expenses they incurred during this time period. Touchstone is the only
agency at the Murphy Center that incurs significant operating expenses. Touchstone has
said they would then reimburse United Way.
C. “Serve 6.8” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the direct
recipient being Serve 6.8 for future operating expenses. Serve 6.8 has not incurred any
direct operating costs of the facility. So, if it is the recipient of the funds, the funds would
be used to cover future operating costs (after July 1, 2013). The reasoning behind this is
different from the other options; funding future operations (saving Serve 6.8 and/or United
Way from having to do it) rather than reimbursing UW for past expenses. Since this option
would no longer be framed as a sort of “emergency”, it also raises a question of why Serve
159
60 of 465
June 11, 2013
6.8 should not just apply for the funds through the City’s Competitive Process like other
social service agencies.
D. “Do nothing” option – No City funding.
According to agency representatives, the “benefit” to Touchstone or Serve 6.8 in receiving the City
funds, for instance, to leverage other funds, is not significant, because the funds would already have
been spent, and would not be available to “match” other grants. The funds would show up on their
balance sheet as a contribution from the City; the City’s financial support is important to other
potential funders.
Funding Agreement
The major terms of the “funding agreement” are as follows:
1. The City shall pay the agency selected by the Council the sum of $45,000 upon receipt of the
expense report.
2. The funds will be (or must have been) used for personnel and non-personnel costs associated
with the operation of the Murphy Center.
3. The agency shall submit a detailed expense report to the City for our review and approval.
4. The process and conditions of turning the facility over to Serve 6.8 should be as transparent
and inclusive as possible to the critical stakeholders.
5. The existing functions of the Murphy Center as a one stop center and entry for homeless
services must continue; and Serve 6.8, needs to be at the table in the discussions around a
new homeless service delivery model, known as ”Continuum of Care”.
6. The City shall have a representative on the advisory/leadership board of the new Murphy
Center.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City’s share will come from the City’s General Fund Reserves. Providing financial assistance
to the Murphy Center is a long term investment. Helping people out of homelessness prevents future
community costs associated with homelessness.
Typically, funding requests for human services are made thru the City’s Spring Competitive Process.
The Spring Competitive Process was not a good match for the current Murphy Center situation
because the funds do not become available until October 1, 2013. Also, the Competitive Process
funds cannot pay for any cost of services, projects or programs expended prior to October 1, 2013.
Over the years, the City has also funded from the General Fund, several social service programs
and activities, outside of the Competitive Process. For example, since 2009, the City has funded:
• Homeward 2020 (the original $100,000 was through the exceptions process) and continue
to do so with a $25,000 sponsorship each year out of the City Manager’s Office budget (and
approved through BFO), for a total of $175,000.
• The Murphy Center Capital Campaign in 2009 ($5,000), 2010 ($6,000), and 2011 ($2,000)
using contingency funding.
• The United Way Temporary Winter Homeless Shelter ($3,000 – operating costs).
160
61 of 465
June 11, 2013
• The Crossroads Safehouse, in 2010 - $3000 – appraisal report; and, in 2010 - $350,000 for
renovation of Crossroads’ new facility, from Police Capital Improvement Expansion fees.
• The Bender Mobile Home Park relocation assistance – 2012 ($50,000) – BFO.
• The City has also provided “sponsorships” through a donation and sponsorship line item
in BFO through the City Manager’s Office (CMO). For those sponsorships that were
unexpected and not funded through BFO, the CMO usually relies on Contingency or
Community Opportunities funds to cover. Agencies receiving this funding include United
Way, Habitat for Humanity, Crossroads Safehouse, and the Food Bank of Larimer County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative B - Touchstone, because it most closely responds to the
direction of Council at its May 28 Work Session. The Murphy Center plays a critical role in the
delivery of services to the homeless and near-homeless in the community, a role that is likely to
become more important as a new model (e.g., “Continuum of Care”) evolves in the North Front
Range area. United Way has carried the cost of operating the Center for the past four years, over
a year longer than originally intended. United Way has demonstrated that it needs the financial
assistance of the City and the other partners, to pay for part of the costs of six months of operations
of the Center. After that time, it appears very likely that Serve 6.8 will take over the ownership and
operation of the Center. Serve 6.8 has said that it intends to continue the original mission and
services of the Center. Serve 6.8 also appears to have the capacity, experience and mission to
continue the important services the Center now provides, and to work collaboratively toward a new
homeless model.”
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated the request before Council is for a one-time
appropriation of General Fund reserves in the amount of $45,000. He discussed the community
services provided by the Murphy Center and the reason for the funding request. The funds would
be used to backfill funding from United Way reserves.
Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County CEO, discussed the history of the Murphy
Center in terms of funding and noted there was a plan to transfer the ownership of the Center after
its first year of operation. He stated though this may appear as a request for retroactive funding, the
agreement was informally made six months ago.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, stated he would support any of the available options, but
suggested a modified option C. He asked if United Way takes a fee if the money is given through
it in Option A and asked why the full $183,000 is not being considered for funding.
Mark Orfan, Serve 6.8 Development Director, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to partner
with the United Way and stated it is their intent to continue to building on the existing model.
Monica Elliott, 815 Roma Valley Drive, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
funding for the Center.
Emily Peterson, Touchstone Health Partners, discussed the mental health services provided by
Touchstone and expressed support for Option B.
161
62 of 465
June 11, 2013
Kristen Eiswerth, Fort Collins resident, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
providing funding in order to maintain necessary services.
David Rout, Homeless Gear Program Director, discussed the need for support for the community’s
homeless population and supported funding for the Murphy Center.
Sarah Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridget Court, stated she volunteers at the Murphy Center and supported
funding for the Center.
Bonnie Inscho, 2815 William Neal Parkway, stated she was a mental health specialist at the Murphy
Center and discussed the importance of the Center to the community. She supported funding.
Richard Thompson, 636 Cheyenne Drive, Fort Collins Area Interfaith Council President, discussed
the value of the Murphy Center to the community and supported funding for the Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked Mr. Thibedeau for additional information regarding the City’s role in
the agreement mentioned. Mr. Thibedeau replied there were two options discussed approximately
six months ago: to either decrease the hours of the Center or to close it. He discussed the
involvement of Serve 6.8, which was not possible for a few months following its initial interest. He
stated keeping the Center open for that time period would cost about $180,000 and an informal
discussion was held regarding possible sources for that funding. He stated he recommended, based
on that conversation, continuing full-time operation until such time as Serve 6.8 decided on taking
over the Center.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why the request for funding did not occur several months ago. Mr.
Thibedeau replied there was a need to first ensure that Serve 6.8 would be moving forward and
scheduling issues also came into play.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the impact to the Murphy Center should this funding not be
approved. Mr. Thibedeau replied the Center would not go away and noted the United Way has
completed its contract payments with Touchstone and is in the process of handing over the operation
of the Murphy Center to Serve 6.8.
Councilmember Campana asked about the informal agreement, mentioning a commitment by the
City. Mr. Thibedeau replied the members of the Homeward 2020 Board had conversations with City
representatives and Bohemian Foundation representatives. He reiterated there was no formal
commitment or agreement.
Councilmember Campana asked who from the City made the informal commitment. Mr. Thibedeau
again stated there was no formal commitment, though he felt comfortable enough the funding would
eventually occur.
City Manager Atteberry stated this funding always hinged on Council approval, whether
recommended by staff or not.
Joe Frank, Social Sustainability Officer, stated the facility is important for the community and noted
the importance of the City continuing its support of the Center.
162
63 of 465
June 11, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked if this program would be part of the competitive process for CDBG
funds in the future. Frank replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked why the funding was not brought forward as a budget amendment in
November or December. Frank replied things were not far enough along at that time to bring
forward a request for funding.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Option
B of Resolution 2013-053.
Councilmember Cunniff supported the Murphy Center but opposed the perceived lack of fairness
of this funding request and suggested Serve 6.8 go through a future competitive process for CDBG
funding.
Councilmember Overbeck supported the Murphy Center, but opposed this request for funding.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion and stated this is an important
expenditure for an important aspect of the community.
Councilmember Campana stated he would support the motion and expressed support for the Murphy
Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak agreed the process for this funding request was imperfect but stated he would
support the motion, given there was a potential commitment from staff.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked the individuals who spoke regarding this item but questioned the
fairness of providing a backfill on reserves for an organization. She expressed support for the
Center, the United Way, Touchstone, and Serve 6.8 and encouraged future participation in the
competitive process for CDBG funds.
Mayor Weitkunat reiterated support for the Murphy Center and opposed this general appropriation
process; however, she stated she would support the motion as the City made a commitment.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell and Horak. Nays:
Cunniff, Overbeck and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 082, 2013, on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat,
Campana, Troxell, Overbeck and Horak. Nays: Cunniff and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
163
64 of 465
June 11, 2013
Executive Session Authorized
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, asked if citizens are allowed to provide input regarding the
mid-term reviews of the three direct Council employees. The Council accepted a document from
Mr. Pruznick for consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to go into Executive
Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code, for the purpose of conducting the
mid-year performance reviews of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge. Yeas:
Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Horak, Troxell, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s Note: The Council returned from Executive Session at 10:08 p.m.)
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
164
65 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be
Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $3,169 as the 2012 payments for public services and
facilities. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 18, 2013, refunds those payments, also
known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), to fund sorely needed affordable housing related activities and to attend
to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 18, 2013
(w/o attachments)
66 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: June 18, 2013
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to be Remitted
to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $3,169 as the 2012 payments for public services and
facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund those payments, also known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILOT), to fund sorely needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs
of Fort Collins residents.
Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT payments to the City. The City
may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the
Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has annually remitted
the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On December 16, 1971, the City and the Authority entered into a Cooperative Agreement which provided that the
Authority must make annual PILOT payments to the City for the public services and facilities furnished by the City.
In 1986, upon request of the Authority, the City Council adopted a resolution which relieved the Authority of its
obligation to make the PILOT payments. Based on that resolution, the Authority did not make PILOT payments from
1987 through 1990. The Authority also received a refund from the City of PILOT payments for the years 1984, 1985
and 1986.
In 1992, the City Council approved a change in the Cooperative Agreement to reinstate the requirement that the
Authority make the annual PILOT payment. The change was done to clarify that PILOT payments are owed to the
City and to avoid the possibility that the Department of Housing and Urban Development might require the Authority
to return the PILOT payments to the federal government. Since that time, the City has refunded the annual PILOT
payments to the Housing Authority.
Staff recommends that the 2012 PILOT payments of $3,169 be appropriated as unanticipated revenue in the General
Fund and remitted to the Authority with the recommendation that the Authority use the funds in the manner consistent
with HUD guidelines. The intended use for the funds is affordable housing and related activities.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City received unanticipated revenue from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in the amount of $3,169 as 2012
payments for public services and facilities. The revenue was placed in the General Fund. This Ordinance will allow
the return of the funds to the Housing Authority to be used for affordable housing and related activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from the Fort Collins Housing Authority, April 24, 2013
67 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 085, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
TO BE REMITTED TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the City has received a payment from the Fort Collins Housing Authority
(the “Authority”) of $3,169 in satisfaction of its 2012 payment in lieu of taxes (“PILOTs”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the 2012 PILOT payment be appropriated
by the City Council for expenditure by the Authority to fund much-needed affordable housing
related activities and to attend to the housing needs of low-income Fort Collins residents; and
WHEREAS, said payment of $3,169 was not projected as a revenue source in the 2012
City budget; and
WHEREAS, the City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in
accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if Council determines that
such remittal serves a valid public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provision of affordable housing
serves an important public purpose and is an appropriate use of these PILOT revenues; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Authority PILOT
payment as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during
any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General
Fund the sum of THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE DOLLARS ($3,169) to
be remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to fund affordable housing and related
activities for Fort Collins residents consistent with the Federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development guidelines.
68 of 465
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
69 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: John Stoke, Mark Sears,
Tawyna Ernst
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Access Easement on
Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners Association.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 18, 2013, formalizes the Natural Areas Department
verbal agreement with Paragon Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) for access across an existing two-track road
off Trilby Road to the HOA’s pumphouse. The pumphouse is located within an existing irrigation easement on Fossil
Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The HOA’s current access has minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional
impacts are anticipated. Access would be solely for maintenance and operation of the facilities associated with the
existing irrigation easement. No other access rights are to be conveyed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 18, 2013
(w/o attachments)
70 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: June 18, 2013
STAFF: John Stokes, Mark Sears
Tawyna Ernst
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Access Easement on
Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners Association.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Natural Areas Department intends to formalize its verbal agreement with Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association (HOA) for access across an existing two-track road off Trilby Road to the HOA’s pumphouse. The
pumphouse is located within an existing irrigation easement on Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area. The HOA’s
current access has minimal impact to the Natural Area and no additional impacts are anticipated. Access would be
solely for maintenance and operation of the facilities associated with the existing irrigation easement. No other access
rights are to be conveyed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Natural Areas Department (NAD) acquired the northeast parcel of Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area (Fossil
Creek Wetlands) from Paragon Investment Group, LLC (Paragon) in August 1995. Prior to this acquisition, Paragon
had granted an irrigation and access easement to Paragon Point Partners, the forerunner to the Paragon Estates
Homeowners Association (HOA) (see Attachment 2). This access route (which ran due west from the HOA’s property
onto Fossil Creek Wetlands) was never formally developed and an alternate route down the existing two-track road
on Fossil Creek Wetlands off Trilby Road was used. A formal easement was never written or executed; the access
was rather granted via a verbal agreement. The HOA continued to use the two-track road after NAD acquired the
property. After a question was raised regarding construction crews using the two-track to access the HOA property,
NAD requested the historic access be formalized with a permanent access easement for the mutual benefit of both
parties to clarify the type of access allowed.
The two-track access road is also used by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water and Sewer District to access the District’s
sewer line easement on the property and by NAD staff for maintenance and patrol.
Paragon needs vehicular and pedestrian access to its pumphouse along the New Mercer Ditch for operation and
maintenance of irrigation-related activities. The pumphouse provides non-potable irrigation water for Paragon’s open
space tracts and residential properties. This access is for Paragon’s HOA representatives and its contractors who
will service the pumphouse. Access is needed to maintain, replace or repair the pumphouse and to operate the pumps
for irrigation. No other access rights will be conveyed to the HOA.
The access road is established, and the surrounding area is dominated by smooth brome and other non-native
vegetation. NAD has not restored the area and no significant biological impacts are anticipated by continued use of
the road by Paragon.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There will be no financial impact or gain to NAD for granting this easement due to: the small size of the easement; the
fact that no new road improvements are needed to provide this access; the fact that the existing road is needed by
the City and one other easement holder; the minimal use by the HOA; and the HOA's historic use of this road as
access to their pump house predates the City's ownership of this property.
71 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 18, 2013 -2- ITEM 15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There will be no significant environmental impact from the project. Impacts from vehicle traffic will be minimized due
to the use of only one access point in the future. Paragon has agreed to allow for passive restoration of the vegetation
along the access route granted in the existing 1994 easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 8, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend that City
Council approve an access easement across Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area to Paragon Estates Homeowners
Association.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Existing Easement and Proposed Access Easement Map
3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, May 8, 2013
72 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 086, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS EASEMENT ON FOSSIL CREEK WETLANDS NATURAL AREA
TO PARAGON ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property acquired in 1995 known as
Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area, which is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated
herein by reference (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Paragon Estates Homeowners Association (“HOA”) is the owner of a
pumphouse located on the City Property within an existing irrigation and access easement that was
granted by a former owner of the City Property (the “Existing Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the access route contemplated in the Existing Easement was never developed
or used, as it would have required building a new road through the greenbelt area of the adjacent
subdivision; instead, the HOA, with verbal permission from the former owner of the City Property,
historically used a two-track access road that connects to Trilby Road across the City Property for
access to its pumphouse; and
WHEREAS, an access easement on the two-track road was never formalized or executed and
the two-track road is not otherwise open to the public, but the HOA continued to use the two-track
road for access after the City acquired the City Property; and
WHEREAS, Natural Areas staff believes it is most practical for the HOA to continue using
the two-track road, and would like to grant an easement to the HOA that would establish conditions
and limits on the HOA’s use of the road; and
WHEREAS, the two-track road is also used by Natural Areas staff for maintenance and
patrol, and the HOA’s limited use should have no impact on the City Property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement area is shown on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated
herein by reference (the “Easement”); and
WHEREAS, because the HOA’s use of the road would be infrequent and would have no real
impact on the City Property, the Easement has minimal value; and
WHEREAS, the road is also the route that the HOA was using even before the City acquired
the City Property; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, City staff is recommending that the HOA not be charged for
this Easement; and
73 of 465
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition
is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Easement on
the City Property to the HOA as provided herein is in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement to the HOA on terms and conditions consistent with this
Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation
with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City
or to effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes
to the description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or
change the character of the Easement.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
74 of 465
L
Legal Desscription oof Fossil Creek Wetl
lands Natuural Area Parcel
EXHIBIT A
75 of 465
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PARAGON ESTATES
PARAGON ESTATES
PARAGON ESTATES
PARAGON ESTATES
¹
Paragon HOA Access Easement Area
Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2013
Project Area
Larimer County
0100 50
Feet
Paragon HOA Access Easement
Paragon Irrigation Easement
EXHIBIT B
76 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Greg Yeager
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts and Projects for the Multi-jurisdictional Northern
Colorado Drug Task Force.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Justice on
behalf of the Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF) for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of
illegal narcotics activities in Larimer County. These grant awards will be used to offset operating expenses for each
participating agency.
In addition, because of the significant decrease in federal funds available for drug enforcement, the drug task force
is transferring $170,888 from its forfeiture reserve account to its 2013 operating budget to cover unfunded expenses.
The majority of the forfeiture reserve account is made up of assets seized from people engaged in illegal drug
activities.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This appropriation is not a request to identify new dollars for the Police Services 2013 budget. This action is taken
every year when federal awards are granted and the NCDTF budget is set. This action will appropriate $96,007 and
$65,573 in new federal grant money and will authorize the transfer of $170,888 from the forfeiture reserve account
for unfunded operating expenses in 2013.
The NCDTF currently includes Fort Collins Police Services, the Loveland Police Department, and Colorado Adult
Parole.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City has received two grant awards for the operation of the NCDTF. These grants will be used for task force
operating expenses.
• Office of National Drug Control Policy (2013-HIDTA) in the amount of $96,007.
• Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (2012-2013 JAG) in the amount of $65,573.
In addition, $170,888 will be transferred from the NCDTF forfeiture reserve account to the City of Fort Collins General
Fund to establish the 2013 annual operating budget for expenses that are not grant funded. There is no financial
impact to the City of Fort Collins as there are no matching funds required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
77 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 087, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS BETWEEN
ACCOUNTS AND PROJECTS FOR THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL NORTHERN
COLORADO DRUG TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Department of Justice has
awarded Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) two grant awards of federal money in the amount
of $161,580; and
WHEREAS, there is $170,888 in prior forfeiture reserve funds in the Northern Colorado
Drug Task Force (the “Task Force”) Reserve in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the grants and prior reserve funds will be used by the Task Force to help fund
the investigation of illegal narcotics activities and the 2013 annual operating budget of the Task
Force; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force consists of representatives from FCPS, Loveland Police
Department, and Colorado Adult Parole; and
WHEREAS, the City and FCPS will administer the grant funds for the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, not withstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the grant funds as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate
of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate unanticipated grant revenue and
prior reserves in the Task Force Forfeiture Reserve for transfer to the General Fund for appropriation
therein for FCPS for the Task Force.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
78 of 465
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the
General Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY
DOLLARS ($161,580) for expenditure, upon receipt, in the General Fund for Police Services for the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from prior year reserves in the Northern
Colorado Drug Task Force Forfeiture Reserve the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT DOLLARS ($170,888) for transfer to the
General Fund and appropriated therein, for Police Services for the Northern Colorado Drug Task
Force.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
79 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to Fund the
Costs Associated with the Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Ordinance is to appropriate medical marijuana application and licensing fees to fund the services
provided by a contractual Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On November 6, 2012, the registered electors of Fort Collins approved Initiative 301, reestablishing medical marijuana
businesses in Fort Collins and creating licensing provisions for such businesses. The licensing provisions included
the creation of a Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority (the “Authority”), consisting of a person appointed by the City
Manager. To fulfill the need for this service, the City solicited proposals from individuals interested in providing the
services required of the Authority, and subsequently entered into a professional services agreement with the law firm
of Widner Michow & Cox, LLP, in Centennial, Colorado, for services to be performed by Kathie Guckenberger at a rate
of $175 per hour. This rate is consistent with the rate paid for other types of hearing officers serving the City. Widner
Michow & Cox dedicates its practice to the representation of Colorado local governments, special districts, and quasi-
governmental authorities, and provides other hearing officer services for the City of Fort Collins.
When the 2013-2014 budget was developed, Initiative 301 had not yet been placed on the November ballot. Upon
approval of the initiative by the voters, staff began to develop a licensing process, fees, and rules and regulations to
provide clarity to some of the provisions in the initiative. The City began accepting applications for medical marijuana
business licenses, along with application and licensing fees, in late January 2013, with only previously licensed medical
marijuana businesses being allowed to apply for the first 90 days. The City received applications for 14 centers, 12
cultivation facilities, and two infused-products manufacturers. Application and licensing fees collected equal $63,000.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance appropriates $63,000 of unanticipated revenue in the General Fund to cover the cost of services
provided by a contractual Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority. Because the City has no prior experience with the
time needed to adequately review license applications and conduct enforcement hearings (if needed), it is difficult to
project costs for 2013. As of June 14, the Authority has invoiced $8,142 for an initial meeting with staff, research and
a legal opinion on the ability of the Authority to grant conditional licenses, consultation with staff and creation of a staff
report form for license applications, the drafting of hearing procedures, and other administrative expenses associated
with establishing the Authority and its regulatory processes. As of the publication of this agenda, six application files
have been submitted to the Authority for review. By law, the Authority has 30 days to render a decision. The
Authority’s decision on the first two application files submitted are due on or before July 5. Until such time as the
Authority has completed an application file review, and invoiced the City for that review, it is difficult to estimate costs
for the remainder of 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
80 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 088, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
TO FUND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDICAL
MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the registered electors of Fort Collins approved
Initiative 301, reestablishing medical marijuana businesses in Fort Collins and creating licensing
provisions for such businesses; and
WHEREAS, Initiative 301 provided for a Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority (the
“Authority”), to be a person appointed by the City Manager whose operations will be overseen
by the City Clerk’s department ; and
WHEREAS, the City began accepting applications for medical marijuana business
licenses and collecting application and licensing fees in January 2013; and
WHEREAS, in February 2013, the City solicited proposals from individuals interested in
providing the services required of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, one response to the Request for Proposals was received, and upon review
and consideration, the City entered into an agreement with the respondent to perform such
service; and
WHEREAS, funding is needed to cover the costs of the Authority's services for the
remainder of 2013; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, application and licensing fees in the amount of $63,000 have been collected
to date, and are available to cover the costs associated with establishing and operating the
Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General
Fund the sum of SIXTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($63,000) to the City Clerk’s
Department to fund the services provided by the Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority.
81 of 465
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of
July, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
82 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Bruce Hendee
Jon Haukaas
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Services Fund
and in the Stormwater Fund for the Restoration of 60 Feet of Frontage along the Poudre River Owned by the City of
Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance appropriates $100,000 split evenly between Stormwater Reserves and Transportation Reserves for
60 feet of frontage restoration between the Block One area of responsibility and the Linden Street bridge.
Reimbursement from the City shall be limited to 40% of the total actual costs, not to exceed $100,000.
Reimbursements are to cover the restoration of 60 feet of frontage owned by the City of Fort Collins. Eligible costs
for reimbursement include design, a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) and construction costs.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Linden Bridges LLC has purchased 418 Linden Street with the intent to build a larger project called Encompass-River
District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Block One”). The project will include the development of multi-family
housing, retail, restaurant, and Encompass Technologies headquarter. Block One sits next to the bridge that carries
Linden Street across the Poudre River. The project is within the City’s River Downtown Redevelopment District, which
includes the area just northeast of Old Town Square including Jefferson, Linden, and Willow Streets and Lincoln
Avenue. The River Downtown Redevelopment District is a component of the City Plan’s Poudre River Corridor.
Block One is required to restore approximately 100 feet of frontage along the Poudre River, which leaves
approximately 60 feet of frontage between the Block One area of responsibility and the Linden Street bridge. Block
One owners have agreed to prepare the design, CLOMR, and construction costs for all 160 feet of frontage with the
understanding that the City will reimburse 40% of the total actual costs, not to exceed $100,000. The appropriation
of reserve funds is for the City’s 60 feet of frontage restoration between Block One’s area of responsibility and the
Linden Street bridge.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Staff is requesting an appropriation for up to $100,000 split evenly between Stormwater Reserves and Transportation
Reserves for the reimbursement of 40% of actual costs incurred by the Block One owners for the design, CLOMR and
construction costs for the 160 feet of frontage restoration along the Poudre River. This reimbursement shall be split
evenly between Stormwater and Transportation Reserves.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The frontage restoration improvements include a proposed tiered streambank stabilization plan that includes native
plants, native rock, and two small retaining walls, which will be obscured by the planted vegetation. The design is
based on the vision set forth in the Poudre River Enhancement Project, an addendum to the Poudre River Drainage
Master Plan. An interdisciplinary team will oversee the tree mitigation and pruning efforts on the site, including the
City Forester and the City’s Environmental Planner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
83 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site map
84 of 465
Cache La Poudre River
LINDEN ST
WILLOW ST
POUDRE ST
Block One
Poudre River Frontage Restoration
RestoratioFunnded City-Frontage
J
**Note: This is a graphical representation and not drawn to scale.
ATTACHMENT 1
85 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 089, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES FUND AND IN THE STORMWATER FUND FOR THE
RESTORATION OF 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG THE POUDRE RIVER
OWNED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, Linden Bridges, LLC has purchased 418 Linden Street with the intent to build
a larger development called Block One, which will include apartment units, retail space, a restaurant,
and the Encompass Technologies headquarters; and
WHEREAS, Block One is on the banks of the Poudre River, sits next to the Linden Street
bridge and is within the City’s River Downtown Redevelopment District, which is a component of
the City Plan’s Poudre River Corridor; and
WHEREAS, Block One is required to restore approximately 100 feet of frontage along the
Poudre River, which leaves an unrestored area owned by the City of approximately 60 feet of
frontage between the Block One area of responsibility and the Linden Street bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Block One owners have agreed to pay the design costs, the cost of a
conditional letter of map revision, and the construction costs for all 160 feet of river frontage; and
WHEREAS, the City will reimburse the Block One owners for the 60 feet of river frontage
on City property at no more than 40% of the total actual costs, not to exceed $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the City’s cost will be split evenly between the Stormwater Fund and the
Transportation Services Fund; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Stormwater Fund prior year reserves and in the
Transportation Services Fund prior year reserves; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Stormwater Fund the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) to be applied toward
the reimbursement of the costs attributable to the restoration of 60 feet of frontage along the Poudre
River owned by the City of Fort Collins.
86 of 465
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Transportation Services Fund the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) to be
applied toward the reimbursement of the costs attributable to the restoration of 60 feet of frontage
along the Poudre River owned by the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
87 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: John Stokes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Natural Area Appropriations.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenues
in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2013
Adopted City Budget.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations to the Capital Project Fund for the Natural Areas Office Building
Project and Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places
Program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Department 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 Governmental Accounting Standards Board,
Natural Areas appropriations and funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Therefore,
unspent funds need to be appropriated into the following year’s budget before they can be spent. 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. Natural Areas has
received unanticipated revenues in 2013 and has reasons to need these funds in 2013 to fund a number of land
conservation efforts.
Ordinance No. 090, 2013, will appropriate $7,310,000: $5,380,000 from prior year reserves and $1,930,000 from 2013
unanticipated revenues in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of providing Natural Areas Programming not
included in the 2013 budget.
Ordinance No. 091, 2013, will appropriate $1,420,000 from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for transfer
to the Capital Project Fund for the purpose of constructing a new Natural Areas Office building.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The funds for the Natural Areas Department come from the following designated sources of revenue, including the
City: Open Space Yes! sales tax; the Larimer County - Help Preserve Open Space sales tax; and, miscellaneous
unanticipated revenues. All of these funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Department, including
unanticipated revenues which consist generally of income from easements, leases or grants.
The total prior year reserve funds appropriated with these two ordinances is $6,800,000: $5,380,000 for Natural Areas
Programming and $1,420,000 for a new Natural Areas Office building.
The unanticipated 2013 revenues being appropriated are more specifically described:
$ 80,000 PRPA - Woodward Power Line Easement Fees and Mitigation Fees
100,000 Pending Donation to the purchase of Coy Ditch Water Rights
750,000 Natural Areas’ portion of the Xcel Gas Line Mitigation Funds
300,000 Revenues - sale of the Vangbo Property with a Conservation Easement
700,000 Revenues - sale of the Maxwell Property with a Conservation Easement
$1,930,000 Unanticipated 2013 Revenues
Therefore, the total amount appropriated with these two Ordinances is $8,730,000: $6,800,000 from prior year
reserves and $1,930,000 from 2013 unanticipated revenues.
88 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 12
The anticipated use of these funds is as follows:
Natural Areas Fund - $7,310,000
• Land Conservation - $5,124,270. $3,194,270 from prior year reserves and $1,930,000 from the 2013
unanticipated revenues will be used for land conservation efforts per the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Master Plan.
• Rangers - $28,000 from prior year reserves to fund upgraded radios to be compatible with police radios.
• Education - $12,500 from prior year reserves to fund unanticipated program needs: to complete the
Soapstone Prairie history research and documentation project started in 2012; and to fund the cost to hire a
consultant to prepare a State Historical Grant.
• Resource Management - $1,365,000 from prior year reserves to fund several major habitat restoration
projects along the Poudre River in 2013-14.
• Public Improvements - $742,815 from prior year reserves to complete public improvement projects that are
underway of which $478,217 are unspent funds designated for contribution to Parks’ paved trails system;
$125,500 in matching funds for the GOCO grant to construct a new trail head parking lot at Arapaho Bend;
complete the trail and parking lot at Reservoir Ridge; complete the trails at Pelican Marsh; construct
educational kiosks at ten sites along the Poudre River; and a number of smaller trail improvements.
• Facility Operations - $37,415 from prior year reserves to complete facility maintenance projects that are
underway: Reservoir Ridge caretaker house; storage shed at the Nix Farm operations center; and
miscellaneous supplies and maintenance work.
Capital Projects Fund - $1,420,000
• New Natural Areas Office Building - $1,420,000 from prior year reserves is being appropriated to construct
the new office building which will be located at Nix Farm, adjacent to an existing office building and operations
shop, this is in addition to $440,000 that was appropriated in the 2013 budget to remodel/reconstruct an
existing historic farm house into a useable office building. Upon further review of office needs and analysis
of the existing structure; it was determined that a much larger office was needed, and the existing farm house
could not be reconstructed to meet those needs. An appropriate sized office building is currently being
designed, that will allow for some future growth. The cost of the 4,200 square foot office building project is
estimated to be $1,860,000, based upon the preliminary design. The goal is to build this new office building
to be LEED Gold certifiable; it will not actually be certified since its size is under the City’s policy of certifying
buildings over 5,000 square feet.
The new office building will provide much needed office and meeting space for the seven Natural Areas
employees that are currently housed downtown at 215 N. Mason and for the five Natural Areas Education staff
that are currently housed in the existing Natural Areas Office at Nix Farm. The office space being freed up
at 215 N. Mason will provide more office space for Environmental Services and the office space being freed
up in the existing Natural Areas Office Building will free up space for existing staff that have been doubling
up in the existing offices for years. The new building will have needed space for a multipurpose room that will
serve as a class room, a conference room and a work room for our volunteers and three offices for future
growth.
The project appropriation of $1,420,000 includes $14,200 for 1% Art in Public Places (APP). Of this amount
$11,076 will be transferred to the APP project in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the artwork and
the remaining $3,124 will be transferred to the same fund for the maintenance of the artwork and operations
of the APP program. The 2013 project budget of $440,000 included a transfer of $4,400 for APP so the total
amount transferred for APP will be $18,600 or 1% of the total project cost.
89 of 465
July 2, 2013 -3- ITEM 12
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Ordinance No. 090, 2013 increases 2013 appropriations in the Natural Areas Fund by $7,310,000: $5,380,000 is
funded by prior year reserves and $1,930,000 is funded with 2013 unanticipated revenues.
Ordinance No. 091, 2013, increases 2013 appropriations in the Natural Areas Fund by $1,420,000, which will come
from prior year reserves.
The total amount appropriated with these two Ordinances is $8,730,000, with a total of $6,800,000 from prior year
reserves and $1,930,000 from 2013 unanticipated revenues.
All of these funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Nix Farm Location map
2. Site map and Building drawings
90 of 465
RIVERBEND PONDS NATURAL AREA
KINGFISHER POINT NATURAL AREA
CATTAIL CHORUS NATURAL AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER
COTTONWOOD HOLLOW NATURAL AREA
PROSPECT PONDS NATURAL AREA
UDALL NATURAL AREA
SPRINGER NATURAL AREA
RIVER'S EDGE NATURAL AREA
THE COTERIE
GUSTAV SWANSON NATURAL AREA
MALLARD'S NEST NATURAL AREA
WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA
REDWING MARSH NATURAL AREA
VINE
COLLEGE
DRAKE
TIMBERLINE
PROSPECT
LEMAY
MULBERRY
ZIEGLER
LEMAY
LINCOLN
RIVERSIDE
REMINGTON
MASON
COUNTY ROAD 9
LEMAY
MOUNTAIN
JEFFERSON
MULBERRY
MULBERRY
Nix Farm Location Map
Natural Areas General
Created by City City Natural of Areas Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2013
Water Bodies ¹
City Natural Areas
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Nix Farm
Attachment 1
91 of 465
Nix Farm Office Building |Neighborhood Meeting | December 19, 2012
Proposed Project | Site Context
ATTACHMENT 2
92 of 465
Nix Farm Office Building |Neighborhood Meeting | December 19, 2012
Proposed Elevations
93 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUES IN THE
NATURAL AREAS FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING NATURAL AREAS
PROGRAMMING NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2013 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City is committed to preserving natural areas and providing educational,
interpretive and appropriate recreational opportunities to the public; and
WHEREAS, Natural Areas programming implements open land conservation priorities
identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan by purchasing conservation easement interests in key
natural areas, community separators, or other open lands; providing stewardship for lands purchased;
and developing trails and interpretive features for public use; and
WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Department is funded primarily through the collection of
Open Space - Yes sales and use tax revenue, as well as revenues from the Larimer County Help
Preserve Open Space sales and use tax, investment earnings, and other miscellaneous revenues
deposited in the Natural Areas Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Fund has unspent and unencumbered appropriations and
additional revenue from 2012 in excess of $5,380,000 and 2013 unanticipated revenue in the amount
of $1,930,000; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that
fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received
during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Natural Areas Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations
unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special
revenue fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse
until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
94 of 465
WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund $5,380,000 and from unanticipated revenue in 2013, $1,930,000 for a total amount of
$7,310,000 to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of trail systems,
wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Natural Areas Fund the sum of FIVE MILLION THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($5,380,000) to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of
trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue
in the Natural Areas Fund the sum of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($1,930,000) to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of
trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
95 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 091, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE NATURAL AREAS FUND AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND FOR THE NATURAL AREAS OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the current Natural Areas Office Building is a two-story historic farm house
located at the Nix Farm that was remodeled in 2002 to house the Natural Areas Department staff
which was less than 20 permanent employees; and
WHEREAS, with the growth of the Natural Areas Department, the 2013 budget appropriated
$440,000 to construct an additional office building at Nix Farm for the Natural Areas staff by adding
to and remodeling the existing two-story historic farm house; and
WHEREAS, after further review of office needs and analysis of the existing farm house, it
has been determined that a much larger office space is needed and the existing farm house cannot
be reconstructed to meet those needs; and
WHEREAS, a new Natural Areas office building that will allow for future growth is
currently being designed for construction adjacent to an existing office building and operations shop
at the Nix Farm; and
WHEREAS, based on the preliminary design, the total cost of a 4,200 square foot office
building is currently estimated to be $1,860,000; and
WHEREAS, additional funds in the amount of $1,420,000 are needed to build the office
structure and these funds are available from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund; and
WHEREAS, $14,200, which represents one percent of the additional appropriation for the
new office building, must be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities fund for the Natural
Areas cost center contribution to the Art in Public Places (APP) program, with $11,076 reserved for
the APP artwork project and $3,124 reserved for the maintenance of the artwork and operations of
the APP program; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one
fund (project) to another fund (project), provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds
are to be expended remains unchanged; and
96 of 465
WHEREAS, the additional appropriation of $1,420,000 herein, would be applied to the same
purpose as the original $440,000 in the 2013 budget appropriation; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund $1,420,000 to be used for the design and construction of a new Natural Areas office
building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the Natural Areas Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($1,420,000) for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Natural Areas Office Building
Project and appropriated therein for expenditure on the Project.
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND
SEVENTY-SIX DOLLARS ($11,076) in the Capital Projects Fund - Natural Areas Office Building
Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund - Art in Public Places
Project and appropriated therein for the Art Project.
Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of THREE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($3,124) in the Capital Projects Fund - Natural Areas
Office Building Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and
appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
97 of 465
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
98 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2013, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2013 annual update of the Land
Use Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The
proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall
quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code.
The proposed revisions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Board at its June 20, 2013 regular meeting. All
of the proposed revisions included in the Ordinance have received unanimous approval from the Board.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Code revision number 933 provides for greater opportunities for Limited Indoor Recreation Establishments (under
5,000 square feet) by allowing these uses to now go into the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, but only
if contained within a specifically defined Neighborhood Center. These uses include yoga studios, exercise clubs,
dance studios, martial arts schools, and arts or crafts studios. This change allows the Land Use Code to respond to
changing trends and conditions by providing for wider distribution of facilities that promote health and wellness.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no Code revisions that would have either a positive or negative an impact on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
All of the proposed changes have been discussed and refined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Board at
various work sessions between February and June of this year. On June 20, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board
considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and voted unanimously to recommend approval of all the
changes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. Summary report of all the issues
3. Cross-reference of the issues to the Ordinance section numbers
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 20, 2013
99 of 465
ATTACHMENT 1
100 of 465
101 of 465
ATTACHMENT 2
102 of 465
103 of 465
104 of 465
105 of 465
106 of 465
107 of 465
108 of 465
109 of 465
110 of 465
111 of 465
112 of 465
113 of 465
ATTACHMENT 3
114 of 465
115 of 465
116 of 465
117 of 465
Planning & Zoning Board _ 2013 LUC Amendments
Page | 2
Citizen participation:
Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, said as a former member of the P&ZS Board, she’d like to speak to the
topic of modification of standards. She said a modification can be approved if it is not detrimental to the
public good and meets one of four criteria. At the orientation of new member Schneider, Deputy City
Attorney Eckman said if that criterion is met than the doors are wide open. Thinking about it further,
she does not believe that to be the case. She said we need to ask ourselves what is the modification.
Is it a small or large adjustment—is there a significant difference (a statistics concept). There is no
definition in the Land Use Code (LUC) of modification. Does that mean that once you meet those
standards you throw out the LUC and anything goes? She would encourage the board to have a
discussion at a work session to get a better idea before there is a project to be reviewed. She’s
working on the Committee for PDOD (Project Development Overlay District) and while there are not
currently any applications maybe the consideration is more the use of modification of standards. There
needs to be some predictability—if you are here, “x,y,z” happens. She thinks the time is right for the
board to look at all kinds of things you can do with that.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the May 16, 2013 Hearing
Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of
the May 16, 2013 Hearing. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Ridgeview Classical School Expansion Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA130002
3. Pateros Creek Project Development Plan, #PDP 130011
4. 2013 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
5. Addition of Permitted Use Policy Discussion
…
_______
Project: 2013 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual
update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and
additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen
since the last annual update in 2012.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief City Planner Ted Shepard noted in this round of proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to
the Land Use Code there are 26 proposed items that change, clarify or add to the Land Use Code.
The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows:
Article One – Organization – one change;
Article Two – Administration –four changes;
Article Three - General Development Standards – nine changes;
ATTACHMENT 4
June 20, 2013
118 of 465
Planning & Zoning Board _ 2013 LUC Amendments
Page | 3
Article Four – Districts – seven changes;
Article Five – Definitions – five changes.
Shepard said there was supporting material in the board’s agenda packet (and posted on the City’s
website) and staff was available for any questions.
Member Hart said it might be helpful for the public to know the board has spent a great deal of
reviewing the proposed changes in work sessions so they are quite familiar with the individual changes.
Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 2013 Annual
Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Member Hart seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 7:0.
Chair Smith thanked staff for their work.
119 of 465
1
ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board hav1e reviewed the Land Use
Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made
recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.2.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subparagraph (O) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are
well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities.
Section 2. That Section 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(C) Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the proceedings at the
public hearing shall be as follows:
(1) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a narrative and/or
graphic description of the development application. The Director shall
present a Staff Report which includes a written recommendation. This
recommendation shall address each standard required to be considered by
this Land Use Code prior to approval of the development application.
(1) Director Overview. The Director shall provide an overview of the
development application.
120 of 465
2
(2) Applicant Presentation. The applicant may present information in support
of its application, subject to the determination of the Chair as to relevance.
Copies of all writings or other exhibits that the applicant wishes the
decision maker to consider must be submitted to the Director no less than
five (5) working days before the public hearing.
(3) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a narrative and/or
graphic description of the development application, as well as a staff
report that includes a written recommendation. This recommendation shall
address each standard required to be considered by this Land Use Code
prior to approval of the development application.
(34) Staff Response to Applicant Presentation. The Director, the City Attorney
and any other City staff member may respond to any statement made or
evidence presented by the applicant.
(45) Public Testimony. Members of the public may comment on the
application and present evidence, subject to the determination of the Chair
as to relevance.
(56) Applicant Response. The applicant may respond to any testimony or
evidence presented by the public.
(67) Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response. The Director,
the City Attorney and any other City staff member may respond to any
statement made or evidence presented by the public testimony or by the
applicant's response to any such public testimony.
Section 3. That Section 2.2.10(A)(1) is hereby amended by the addition of a new
subparagraph (g) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(g) in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant
to a basic development review or use-by-right review under prior law, the
minor amendment results in the building and parcel of ground upon which
the building is located being brought into compliance, to the extent
reasonably feasible, with the applicable general development standards
contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in
Article 4 of this Land Use Code.
Section 4. That Section 2.2.11(D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(2) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing generally the type and
intensity of use approved and the specific parcel or parcels affected, and
stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be
published by the City once, not later than fourteen (14) days after the
121 of 465
3
expiration of any right of appeal of the approval of any final plan or other
site specific development plan, or, in the event of the filing of an appeal,
after final resolution by the City of such appeal, in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City. The period of time permitted by law for the
exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not
begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within
said fourteen-day period, or thereafter.
Section 5. That Section 2.2.11(D)(9) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall
development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by
the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn
by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the
subject of another overall development plan or project development plan
application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final
decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan
unless the Director determines that the granting of an exception to this
requirement would not be detrimental to the public good and would: (a)
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-
wide concern; or (b) result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of
the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the
City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution of the City Council the new plan includes substantial changes in
land use, residential density and/or non-residential intensity.
Section 6. That Section 3.2.1(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(A) Applicability. This Section shall apply to all development (except for development
on existing lots for single-family detached dwellings) within the designated "limits
of development" ("LOD") and natural area buffer zones established according to
Section 3.4.1 (Natural Habitats and Features).
Section 7. That Section 3.2.2(L)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(2) Compact Vehicle Spaces in Long-term Parking Lots and Parking Structures.
Those areas of a parking lot or parking structure that are approved as long-
term parking have the option to include compact parking stalls. Such
approved long-term parking areas may have up to forty (40) percent compact
car stalls using the compact vehicle dimensions set forth in Table B, except
when no minimum parking is required for a use pursuant to Section 3.2.2(K),
in which event the number of compact car stalls allowed may be greater than
122 of 465
4
forty (40) percent. No compact spaces shall be designated as handicap
parking spaces.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 3.2.2(L)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(3) Long-Term Parking Stalls. As an option in long-term parking areas, if no
compact car stalls are to be included, all long-term parking stalls may be
designated using the following stall dimensions:
. . .
Section 9. That Section 3.2.4(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(C) Lighting Levels. With the exception of lighting for public streets and private
streets, all other project lighting used to illuminate buildings, parking lots,
walkways, plazas or the landscape shall be evaluated during the development
review process. The following chart gives the average minimum and, for under-
canopy fueling areas, maximum lighting levels for outdoor facilities used at night.
Area/Activity* Foot-candle
Building surrounds (nonresidential) 1.0
Bikeways along roadside
Commercial areas
Intermediate areas
Residential areas
0.9
0.6
0.2
Walkways along roadside
Commercial areas
Intermediate areas
Residential areas
0.9
0.6
0.5
Park walkways 0.5
Pedestrian stairways 0.3
Loading and unloading platforms 5.0
Parking areas 1.0
Playgrounds 5.0
Under-canopy area (average maintained
maximum)
20.0
Under-canopy area (initial installation maximum) 26.0
* Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Lighting Handbook
123 of 465
5
Section 10. That Section 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(D) Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size.
(1) Setback from Arterial Streets. The minimum setback of every residential
building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the
residential building shall be thirty (30) feet from any arterial street right-of-
way shall be thirty (30) feet, except for those buildings regulated by Section
3.8.30 of this Land Use Code, which buildings must comply with the setback
regulations set forth in Section 3.8.30.
(2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. The Mminimum setback of every
residential building and of every detached accessory building that is
incidental to the residential building shall be fifteen (15) feet from any public
street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be fifteen
(15) feet, except for those buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30 of this Land
Use Code, which buildings must comply with the setback regulations set
forth in Section 3.8.30. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of
any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty
(20) feet.
. . .
Section 11. That Section 3.7.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(B) Establishment of Urban Growth Areasa Growth Management Area. The city has
adopted a cooperative planning area policy in the City Plan that includes an urban
growth areaa growth management area as adopted by Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County.
Section 12. That Section 3.7.2(A)(3) and (4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(3) Exemption for Infill Areas. A development application for the Infill Area
need not comply with the requirements of this subsection (A).
(43) Exemption for Properties Located Within Certain Planned Subareas.
Development located within the following planned subareas need not comply
with the requirements of this subsection (A):
(a) Fossil Creek Reservoir Area.
(b) Harmony Corridor.
Section 13. That Section 3.7.2(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
124 of 465
6
(B) Developments Outside the Urban Growth AreaGrowth Management Area. No
development application shall be accepted or approved as part of an annexation
petition if the proposed development is located outside the Urban Growth
AreaGrowth Management Area.
Section 14. That Section 3.8.30(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards apply to all multi-family devel-
opments projects that contain at least four (4) dwelling units. These standards and
are intended to promote variety in building form and product, visual interest, access
to parks, pedestrian-oriented streets and compatibility with surrounding
neighborhoods. Multi-family developments in the Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Overlay Zone are exempt from subsections (B), (C) and (E) of this Section.
Section 15. That Section 3.8.30(B)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(3) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
(a) Small lot single-family detached dwellings on lots containing less than
six thousand (6,000) square feet.
(b) Two-family dwellings.
(c) Single-family attached dwellings.
(d) Mixed-use dwelling units.
(e) Group homes.
(f) Multi-family dwellings containing three (3) to four (4) units per
building.
(g) Multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per
building.
(fh) Multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per
building.
Section 16. That Section 3.8.30(E)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(3) Minimum setback from street right of way: none. the right-of-way
along an arterial street shall be fifteen (15) feet and along a non-arterial
street shall be nine (9) feet.
125 of 465
7
(a) Exceptions to the setback standards are permitted if one of
the following is met:
1. Each unit side that faces the street has a porch
and/or balcony that has a minimum depth of six (6)
feet (as measured from the building facade to the far
side posts, railings/spindles) and a minimum length
of eight (8) feet. If more than one side of a unit
faces the street, then only one side is required to
comply.
2. An outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio
or garden is located between a building and the
sidewalk, provided such space shall have
landscaping, low walls, fencing or railings, a tree
canopy and/or other similar site improvements
along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest,
comfort and visual continuity.
3. All ground units that face a street are ADA
compliant units that have street-facing porches that
are directly and individually accessed from the
public sidewalk by a connecting walkway that is at
least six (6) feet in width.
4. All ground units that face a street with a transit stop
that fronts the building are affordable housing units,
each having a street-facing stoop that directly
accesses the public sidewalk by a connecting
walkway.
. . .
Section 17. That Section 3.10.4(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
deletion of subparagraph (e) as follows:
(E) Bicycle Parking. A minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be
provided, equal in number to ten (10) percent of the total number of
automobile parking spaces provided by the development, but not less than
four (4) spaces.
Section 18. That Section 4.5(B)(1)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
(e) Residential Uses:
1. Extra occupancy rental houses with four (4) or fewer tenants.
126 of 465
8
21. Shelters for victims of domestic violence for up to fifteen (15)
residents.
Section 19. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(a)7 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than four (4) tenantsfour
or more tenants.
Section 20. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the follow-
ing uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores; convenience
retail stores; personal and business service shops; small animal
veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics;
community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities;
schools; child care centers; limited indoor recreation
establishments; and places of worship or assembly.
Section 21. That Section 4.5(D)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this
requirement:
1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages.
2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded
garages.
3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less
than four thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty
[40] feet or less) if there is a difference of at least two thousand
(2,000) square feet between the average lot size for small lot
single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for
single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages.
4. Two-family dwellings.
5. Single-family attached dwellings.
6. Mixed-use dwelling units.
7. Multi-family dwellings containing more three (3) to four (4) units
per building.
8. Multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per
building.
127 of 465
9
79. Multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per
building (limited to twelve [12] dwelling units per building);.
810. Mobile home parks.
Section 22. That Section 4.5(E)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(4) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing More Than Eight
(8) Dwelling Units and for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing between Four
(4) and Eight (8) Dwelling Units When Three (3) or More Stories in Height.
Each multi-family dwelling containing more than eight (8) dwelling units and
each multi-family dwelling containing between four (4) and eight (8)
dwelling units, when located in a building of three (3) or more stories in
height, shall feature a variety of massing proportions, wall plane proportions,
roof proportions and other characteristics similar in scale to those of single-
family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings can be
aesthetically integrated into the low density neighborhood. The following
specific standards shall also apply to such multi-family dwellings:
. . .
Section 23. That Section 4.9(D)(5) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(5) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three
hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on
October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation
shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.Allowable
Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of
a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50)
percent of the lot.
Section 24. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC)
General Commercial District
(C-G)
A. RESIDENTIAL
. . . . . . . . .
B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC
. . . . . . . . .
Microbrewery/distillery/winery Not permitted Type 1
C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
128 of 465
10
. . . . . . . . .
Microbrewery/distillery/winery Not permitted Type 1
Section 25. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas
A. RESIDENTIAL
. . . . . . . . .
E. ACCESSORY - MISC.
Wireless telecommunication equipment Type 1 Type 1
Wireless telecommunication facilities Type 1 Type 1
Satellite dish antennas greater than thirty-nine (39) inches in diameter BDR BDR
Outdoor vendor BDR BDR
Accessory uses BDR BDR
Accessory buildings BDR BDR
Section 26. That Section 4.26(D)(5)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any
residential portion of a development plan greater than ten (10) acres but
less than thirty (30) acres in size, including parcels which are part of a
phased development. A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be
required on any residential portion of a development plan greater than
thirty (30) acres in size, including parcels which are part of a phased
development. The following list of housing types shall be used to
satisfy this requirement:
1. single-family detached dwellings.
2. single-family attached dwellings.
3. two-family dwellings.
4. multi-family dwellings containing three (3) to four (4) units per
building.
5. multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per
building.
46. multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per
buidling.
57. group homes.
129 of 465
11
68. mixed-use dwellings.
Section 27. That Section 4.27(D)(2)(m) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(m) Minor Ppublic facilities.
. . .
Section 28. That Section 4.27(D)(6)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any
residential portion of a development plan greater than ten (10) acres but
less than thirty (30) acres in size, including parcels which are part of a
phased development. A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be
required on any residential portion of a development plan greater than
thirty (30) acres in size, including parcels which are part of a phased
development. The following list of housing types shall be used to
satisfy this requirement:
1. single-family detached dwellings located on lots containing no
more than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
2. single-family attached dwellings.
3. two-family dwellings.
4. multi-family dwellings containing three (3) to four (4) units per
building.
5. multi-family dwellings containing five (5) to seven (7) units per
building.
46. multi-family dwellings containing more than seven (7) units per
building.
57. group homes.
68. mixed-use dwellings.
79. mobile home parks.
Section 29. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
130 of 465
12
(2) Development shall not include:
…
(b) work by the City or any public utility for the purpose of restoring or
stabilizing the ecology of a site, or for the purpose of inspecting, repairing,
renewing or constructing, on public easements or rights-of-way, any
mains, pipes, cables, utility tunnels, power lines, towers, poles, tracks or
the like; provided, however, that this exemption shall not include work by
the City or a public utility in constructing or enlarging mass transit or
railroad depots or terminals or any similar traffic-generating activity;
. . .
Section 30. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Disabled person” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Disabled person shall mean any person who has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or
is regarded as having such impairment. A physical or mental impairment shall mean
hearing, mobility and visual impairment, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness,
AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or
more major life activities. Major life activities shall mean walking, talking, hearing,
seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and/or caring for oneself.
Section 31. That the definition “Dwelling, mixed-use” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Dwelling, mixed-use shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same
building as a nonresidential use (but not including an accessory use).
Section 32. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Existing limited permitted use” which reads in its entirety as
follows:
Existing limited permitted use shall mean any use that was permitted for a specific parcel
of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27,
1997, which is not specifically listed as a permitted use under the zone district regulations
of the zone district of this Code in which the parcel of property is located, and which
physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997. Such use is permitted in the
various zone districts established in Division 4 under the limitation that such use shall
constitute a permitted use only on such parcels of property.
Section 33. That the definition “Mixed use” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
131 of 465
13
Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot, tract or parcel of land, building or
structure with two (2) or more different uses, including, but not limited to, residential,
office, retail, public uses, personal service or entertainment uses, (but not including
accessory uses), designed, planned and constructed as a unit.
Section 34. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Vehicle” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Vehicle shall mean a truck, bus, van, railroad car, automobile, tractor, trailer, motor
home, recreational vehicle, semi-tractor or any other motorized transportation device,
regardless of whether it is in operating condition.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of
July, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
132 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Tom Vosburg
Steve Catanach
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 093, 2013, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish User Fees for Public
Use Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will establish user fee rates for public use electric vehicle charging stations operated through the City’s
public electric vehicle (EV) charging station pilot program. These user fees only apply to the public use charging
stations owned and operated by the City of Fort Collins Utility Services. The user fees for use of 240 volt “Level 2”
charging stations will be $1.00 per 1 hour charging session and the fee for use of a 480 volt “Level 3” DC quick charger
will be $3.00 per session. These fees are calculated to recover the direct energy and payment processing costs
associated with each charging session. While user fees for general fund services can be established administratively
by the City Manager, Council must establish all Utility Services rates and fees by ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The 2013 budget includes Light and Power Utility capital project funding for a public use EV charging station pilot
program. The program includes funding for approximately five to ten public use EV charging stations located in off-
street parking at City facilities. The actual number of charging stations installed will depend on installation costs
associated with the selected sites. While the City has a number of charging stations for City fleet vehicles, that
equipment is not available for use by the general public to charge private vehicles. The public use charging stations
will be located in public parking areas and EV drivers will pay a service fee to use the equipment.
There are three classes of EV charging equipment based on the type of power required by the equipment and the
relative speed of charging. Level 1 charging uses ordinary household 120 volt power and can be supported by simply
plugging an EV into a typical electric outlet. Level 2 charging requires using a battery charging appliance powered by
240 volt electric service similar to that used by clothes dryers and air conditioners. Level 3 charging requires advanced
direct current (DC) quick charging equipment powered by 480 volt high power commercial electric service. Level 1
equipment will provide between two to five miles of EV driving range for each hour of charging time; Level 2 chargers
will provide between 7 and 20 miles for each hour of charging; while Level 3 chargers can provide 60 to 80 miles of
range in less than 30 minutes.
The City will offer both Level 2 and Level 3 charging services. The user fee for Level 2 charging stations will be $1.00
per 1 hour charging session and the fee for Level 3 DC quick charger service will be $3.00 per session. These fees
are calculated to recover the direct energy and user fee payment processing costs associated with each charging
session. The fees are not expected to recover all equipment, installation, and fixed administrative overhead costs.
The City has received significant equipment donations from Nissan Motor Corporation and the Bohemian Companies,
as well as a grant from the State of Colorado for assistance with capital and installation costs.
Staff researched user fees set by other public agencies for EV charging services. Many public agencies are initially
offering EV charging for free, but most expect to implement fees at some point. Fees now in place by public agencies
typically range between $1.00 and $2.00 per hour for Level 2 charging. Very few Level 3 stations are available to the
public and it is difficult to find comparisons of what other communities charge for such service.
Table 1 below lists the locations identified to date for City owned public use EV charging stations. Staff will continue
to evaluate options for installing charging stations at other City facilities.
133 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 14
Table 1: Planned City of Fort Collins Public Use EV Charging Stations
Location Number and Type of EV
Charging Stations
Date Planned to be Available
Fort Collins Museum of Discovery 1 Level 3
1 Level 2
July 29, 2013
Civic Center Parking Structure 2 Level 2 July 29, 2013
MAX BRT South Transit Center 2 Level 2 Spring, 2014
Fort Collins Senior Center 2 Level 2 To Be Determined
The City of Fort Collins is coordinating its public use charging station program with the City of Loveland, as well as
private businesses, through the Electrification Coalition’s Drive Electric Northern Colorado initiative. The City of
Loveland will be installing eight public use Level 2 charging stations this year. The Loveland public use charging
stations will be located at the Loveland Library, the City of Loveland Civic and Service Centers, and McKee Hospital.
The redevelopment of Foothills Mall will include two customer use EV charging stations, and both New Belgium
Brewing and O’Dell’s Brewery have installed free EV customer use charging stations.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Implementing user fees for EV charging services (rather than offering free charging as some agencies do) will help
reduce the ongoing operating costs of the public EV charging station program.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The public use EV charging station pilot program aligns with the City’s sustainability goals. Staff believes there will
be no significant environmental impacts resulting from collecting user fees for City operated EV charging station
services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the proposed fee was published in the Coloradoan on June 14, 2013, and a mailing was sent to city electric
customers outside of the city limits in accordance with state requirements.
134 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 093, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO ESTABLISH USER FEES FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City
Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for
utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses
and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the 2013-2014 Biennial Budget includes Light and Power Utility capital project
funding for a pilot public use electric vehicle (EV) charging station program (the “Program”) in
coordination with the Electrification Coalition’s Drive Electric Northern Colorado initiative; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has several charging stations for City fleet vehicles, but that
equipment is not available for use by the general public to charge private vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the Program includes funding for up to ten public use EV charging stations
located in off street public parking areas at City facilities with EV drivers paying a service fee to use
the equipment; and
WHEREAS, following the initial use of budgeted funds for startup expenses, staff anticipates
that the Project will be self-sustaining; and
WHEREAS, under the Program, Level 2 (240 volt) and Level 3 (480 volt) services will be
available at fee rates of $1.00 per one-hour session for Level 2 charging stations and $3.00 per
session for Level 3 charging stations; and
WHEREAS, the fees are calculated to recover the Electric Utility’s direct energy and
payment processing costs associated with each charging session; however, the fees are not expected
to recover all equipment, installation, and fixed administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, initially subsidizing the Program at fixed costs will result in a greater long-range
ratepayer benefit by enabling quicker development of baseline EV charging infrastructure and
incentivizing local EV purchases; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Board considered the Program on April 5, 2012 and recommended
adoption of the Program as a “mature” public EV charging program that integrates charging station
use with parking policies and user service fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and staff have recommended to the City Council the following
electric rates, fees and charges applicable for services at City EV charging stations under the
Program on or after August 1, 2013; and
135 of 465
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to adopt electric rates, fees and charges for public electric vehicle charging
stations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition
of a new Section 26-476 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 26-476. Public electric vehicle charging station service user fees.
(a) Availability. Designated electric vehicle charging stations will be made
available by the Electric Utility for public use within the corporate limits of the City
at the user rates set forth in this Section.
(b) Applicability. The fees set forth in this Section shall apply to all public
electric vehicle charging stations owned and operated by the Electric Utility.
(c) User Fee Rates. Public electric vehicle charging station service user fees
(including six and zero tenths percent charge in lieu of taxes and franchise) will be
provided and billed on a session basis as follows:
(1) Level 2-240 volt charging: One dollar and zero cents per one-hour
charging session.
(2) Level 3-480 volt DC Quick Charging: Three dollars and zero cents
per charging session.
(d) Payment of fees. Payment for electric vehicle charging station services will
be collected directly from the customer at the point of service (the charging station
or City facility at which the charging station is located) through credit card or other
payment processing service.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-2-
136 of 465
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
137 of 465
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Helen Matson
Kayla Ballard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 094, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 212 Laporte Avenue to
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. for Up to Five Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. wishes to lease 212 West Laporte Avenue to house a non-profit café with
a minimal food processing facility. The total yearly lease payment for the property will be a minimum of $44,688. The
term of the lease shall be for one (1) year, with renewals on a yearly basis for up to four (4) successive one-year terms.
With this lease, either party will have the option to terminate at any time upon a one (1) year advance written notice
to the other party. The tenant will be responsible for the taxes, all utilities, communication services, trash services and
janitorial services.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City purchased the 6,384 square foot building at 212 Laporte Avenue, formerly Abraxis Glass (“Abraxis”), in July
2005 to allow for future City development. The City has leased the building to two commercial tenants since the
purchase. Part of the purchase agreement with Abraxis was a lease while the new Abraxis facility was being
constructed. In February 2008, Real Deals leased the property until it vacated in April 2012.
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. (“FoCo Café”) is a non-profit organization that operates a café open to the
general public and also provides meals to people regardless of their ability to pay while using local, organic, and
sustainably-grown ingredients. FoCo Café hours of operation will be 11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. Mondays through
Saturdays. FoCo Café will have a “growing wall” inside the café that will contribute to the ingredients of the meals.
FoCo Café is a 100% volunteer operated organization. In addition, the site will minimally process local fresh produce
to increase its availability to low-income citizens.
The floor plan at 212 West Laporte Avenue currently consists of a 4,101 square foot warehouse-type area with a 630
square foot showroom and three offices. FoCo Café plans to remodel the building to include customer seating/dining
area in approximately one-half of the building, a kitchen with a food preparation area, and upgraded improvements
to the restrooms. A new handicap accessible ramp will be installed on the east side of the building. The bike racks
will be located next to and north of the ramp. FoCo will have six parking spaces, two on the east side of the building
and four on the north side of the building by the loading dock. A full trash enclosure will be constructed adjacent to the
loading dock. FoCo Café will pay all costs of the remodel.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Annual rent collected from this lease will result in at least $44,688 in unanticipated revenue. Rent for this space is
based on $7/square foot and is based on warehouse space. Staff confirmed the lease with a commercial broker that
specializes in the downtown area. The Tenant will be responsible for expenses of all utilities, communication services,
trash services, janitorial services, and taxes. In addition, it will be the obligation of the Tenant for any tenant finish
costs. The City will be responsible for maintenance costs to the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
ORDINANCE NO. 094, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT
212 LAPORTE AVENUE TO FEEDING OUR COMMUNITY OURSELVES, INC.
FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the property legally described as Lots 44 and 45, Block
32, Fort Collins, Colorado, also known as 212 LaPorte Avenue (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property was purchased by the City in 2005 to allow for future City
development consistent with the Civic Center Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has no immediate plans for the Property, and City staff is therefore
recommending that it be leased at a current market rate of no less than $7.00 per square foot to offset
the City's maintenance expenses and generate revenue; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to lease the Property to Feeding Our Community Ourselves,
Inc. (“FoCo Café”) and FoCo Café desires to lease the Property from the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lease would be for a period of one year, renewing on a yearly
basis for up to four additional years with termination upon one-year's notice by either party; and
WHEREAS, the lease of the Property will benefit the City by generating revenue, reducing
the City’s costs for utilities for the Property and discouraging vandalism; and
WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell,
convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City,
provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best interests
of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Property located at 212
LaPorte Avenue under the terms listed above is in the best interests of the City because the City will
receive fair market rent for the Property, and the lease of the Property will discourage vandalism and
reduce the City’s utility costs for the Property .
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for
the Property on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional
terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be
necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any
necessary changes to the legal description of the Property, as long as such changes do not materially
increase the size or change the character of the property to be leased.
140 of 465
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
141 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Karen Cumbo
Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 095, 2013, Amending Ordinance No. 068, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-
exclusive Utility Easement in a Portion of South Shields Street to Public Service Company of Colorado, to Increase
the Easement Term from Fifteen to Twenty Years.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Ordinance No. 068, 2013,extending the period from fifteen to twenty years.
Ordinance No. 068, 2013, authorizing conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement to Xcel, was adopted in May,
and follow-up conversations with Xcel (Public Service Company) require this extension.
This easement addresses the location of West Main pipeline at the northwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields
Street and provides for the location in the right of way instead of on private property .The City has agreed to pay for
any relocation of the approximately 2000 feet of line adjacent to the property that may be necessary in the next twenty
years. This is a low-risk option and will be consistent with the location of the pipeline in the Shields Street right of way.
In order to document this agreement between the City and Xcel, staff is recommending a Non-Exclusive Pipeline
Easement within the Shields Street right of way.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), an Xcel Energy company, is requesting easements within the Shields
Street right of way to construct, operate, and maintain a high pressure gas pipeline. The proposed project is part of
the larger West Main Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement Project (West Main Project) that encompasses Larimer,
Weld, and Boulder Counties. The project will replace an existing eight-inch gas pipeline that is 83 years old and at the
end of service life with a 16-inch high pressure gas pipeline. The proposed project will traverse the city north to south
and will impact the road surface and traffic along Shields Street, Horsetooth Road, and Timberline Road.
PSCo is authorized in Section 6 of the City Code to construct operate and maintain gas facilities with in the public right
of way. However, in this case, PSCo, in exchange for relocating its proposed gas line from a private easement to the
public right of way, is requesting a pipeline easement that would release it from the obligation to relocate this pipeline
within the proposed easement at its expense.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The extension of the easement period from fifteen to twenty years is not expected to appreciably affect the likelihood
of City financial responsibility.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed re-alignment for the project will avoid impacts to the private property and place the pipeline with in the
public right of way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
142 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 16
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Xcel conducted three open houses in the region, and established a West Main project website
(www.xcelenergywestmainpipeline.com) to provide information on the project. The City did not conduct additional
public outreach on this proposed extension.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
143 of 465
144 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 095, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 068, 2013, AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE
OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILITY EASEMENT IN A PORTION OF
SOUTH SHIELDS STREET TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO,
TO INCREASE THE EASEMENT TERM FROM FIFTEEN TO TWENTY YEARS
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the current Shields Street right-of-way lying within the
southwest quarter of Section 34 and the southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 6 North, Range
69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, between Harmony Road
and a point 548 feet north, more or less, of the intersection between Troutman Parkway and Shields
Street (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 068, 2013,
authorizing the conveyance of a non-exclusive utility easement to Public Service Company of
Colorado (“PSCo”) (the “Easement”) on a portion of the City Property for the benefit of its West
Main High Pressure Natural Gas Line Replacement Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 068 authorized the Easement for the limited term of fifteen
years, after which the natural gas pipeline would be governed by all requirements and limitations
applicable to utility lines, and particularly natural gas pipelines, in City rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Xcel has asked that the City extend the term of the Easement to twenty years,
rather than fifteen years; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed this request and has not identified any appreciable detriment
to the City that would result from the increased term length; and
WHEREAS, authorization of a longer term of the Easement would be consistent with the
terms that had been negotiated with PSCo, and would allow the Project to proceed as planned; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition
is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the City's conveyance to PSCo of the
Easement on the City Property as provided in Ordinance No. 068, 2013, for a term of twenty years,
is in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement to PSCo on terms and conditions consistent with Ordinance No.
145 of 465
068, 2013, for a term of twenty years as provided in this Ordinance, together with such additional
terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are
necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any
necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
146 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
Jason Licon
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-056 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the 2013 Grant Agreement (AIP Project No. 3-08-0023-
32-2013) with the Federal Aviation Administration for Improvements at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a Grant Agreement from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) for up to $1,536,295. This FAA Grant will be used to for a capital construction project that includes the
rehabilitation and repair of the Airport’s primary aircraft apron and perimeter fence completion.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Resolution is an annual entitlement grant that is given each year to the airport from the FAA for being a primary
commercial service airport.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The $1,536,295 FAA Entitlement Grant requires a 10% match that is split 5% by the State of Colorado and 5% from
the airport reserves, or $85,349.70 each. This project has been appropriated and budgeted for in 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FAA 3-08-0023-32-2013 Grant Agreement
147 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 1
U.S. Department
of Transportation
GRANT AGREEMENT
Federal Aviation
Administration
Part I - Offer
Date of Offer: _________________
Airport: Ft. Collins- Loveland Municipal
Airport
Project Number: 3-08-0023-32
Contract Number: DOT-FA13NM-XXXX
DUNS #: 07-648-1407
To: City of Ft. Collins, Colorado and City of Loveland, Colorado
(herein called the "Sponsor")
From: The United States of America (acting through the Federal Aviation Administration, herein called the "FAA")
Whereas, the Sponsor has submitted to the FAA a Project Application dated February 28, 2013 for a grant of Federal
funds for a project at or associated with the Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, which Project Application, as
approved by the FAA, is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and
Whereas, the FAA has approved a project for the Airport (herein called the "Project") consisting of the following:
Rehabilitate Apron, install perimeter fence
all as more particularly described in the Project Application.
148 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 2
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States Code, as
amended, herein called “the Act”, and in consideration of (a) the Sponsor's adoption and ratification of the representations
and assurances contained in said Project Application and its acceptance of this offer as hereinafter provided, and (b) the
benefits to accrue to the United States and the public from the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the
assurances and conditions as herein provided, THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the
allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the Project, 90.00 per centum thereof.
This Offer is made on and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Conditions
1. The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this offer shall be $_______. For the purpose of any
future grant amendments, which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the United States under the
provisions of Section 47108(b) of the Act, the following amounts are being specified for this purpose:
$-0- for planning
$----------- for airport development.
2. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by the FAA to be ineligible for
consideration as to allowability under the Act.
3. Payment of the United States share of the allowable project costs will be made pursuant to and in accordance with
the provisions of such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe. Final determination of the
United States share will be based upon the final audit of the total amount of allowable project costs and settlement
will be made for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs.
4. The sponsor shall carry out and complete the Project without undue delay and in accordance with the terms
hereof, and such regulations and procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe, and agrees to comply with the
assurances which were made part of the project application.
5. The FAA reserves the right to amend or withdraw this offer at any time prior to its acceptance by the sponsor.
6. This offer shall expire and the United States shall not be obligated to pay any part of the costs of the project
unless this offer has been accepted by the sponsor on or before ________, or such subsequent date as may be
prescribed in writing by the FAA.
7. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover Federal funds spent fraudulently,
wastefully, or in violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any other manner in any project upon which
Federal funds have been expended. For the purposes of this grant agreement, the term "Federal funds" means
funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor that were originally paid pursuant to this or any other Federal
grant agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the Secretary as to any determination of the amount of the Federal
share of such funds. It shall return the recovered Federal share, including funds recovered by settlement, order or
judgment, to the Secretary. It shall furnish to the Secretary, upon request, all documents and records pertaining to
the determination of the amount of the Federal share or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation, or other efforts
taken to recover such funds. All settlements or other final positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise,
involving the recovery of such Federal share shall be approved in advance by the Secretary.
8. The United States shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons, who may arise
from, or be incident to, compliance with this grant agreement.
149 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 3
Special Conditions
9. The sponsor will carry out the project in accordance with policies, standards, and specifications approved by the
Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars listed in the "Current FAA Advisory Circulars
Required for use in AIP Funded and PFC Approved Projects," dated April 16, 2013, and included in this grant,
and in accordance with applicable state policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary.
10. It is mutually understood and agreed that if, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that the maximum
grant obligation of the United States exceeds the expected needs of the Sponsor by $25,000.00 or five percent
(5%), whichever is greater, the maximum obligation of the United States can be unilaterally reduced by letter
from the FAA advising of the budget change. Conversely, if there is an overrun in the total actual eligible and
allowable project costs, FAA may increase the maximum grant obligation of the United States to cover the
amount of the overrun not to exceed the statutory percent limitation and will advise the Sponsor by letter of the
increase. It is further understood and agreed that if, during the life of the project, the FAA determines that a
change in the grant description is advantageous and in the best interests of the United States, a letter from the
FAA will unilaterally amend the change in grant description. Upon issuance of the aforementioned letter, either
the grant obligation of the United States is adjusted to the amount specified or the grant description is amended to
the description specified.
11. For a project to replace or reconstruct pavement at the airport, the Sponsor shall implement an effective airport
pavement maintenance management program as is required by Airport Sponsor Assurance Number C-11. The
Sponsor shall use such program for the useful life of any pavement constructed, reconstructed, or repaired with
federal financial assistance at the airport. As a minimum, the program must conform with the provisions outlined
below:
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
An effective pavement maintenance management program is one that details the procedures to be followed to
assure that proper pavement maintenance, both preventive and repair, is performed. An airport sponsor may use
any form of inspection program it deems appropriate. The program must, as a minimum, include the following:
a. Pavement Inventory. The following must be depicted in an appropriate form and level of detail:
(1) location of all runways, taxiways, and aprons;
(2) dimensions;
(3) type of pavement, and;
(4) year of construction or most recent major rehabilitation.
For compliance with the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) assurances, pavements that have been constructed,
reconstructed, or repaired with federal financial assistance shall be so depicted.
b. Inspection Schedule.
(1) Detailed Inspection. A detailed inspection must be performed at least once a year. If a history of recorded
pavement deterioration is available, i.e., Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey as set forth in Advisory
Circular 150/5380-6, “Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements,” the frequency of
inspections may be extended to three years.
150 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 4
(2) Drive-By Inspection. A drive-by inspection must be performed a minimum of once per month to detect
unexpected changes in the pavement condition.
c. Record Keeping. Complete information on the findings of all detailed inspections and on the maintenance
performed must be recorded and kept on file for a minimum of five years. The types of distress, their
locations, and remedial action, scheduled or performed, must be documented. The minimum information to
be recorded is listed below:
(1) inspection date,
(2) location,
(3) distress types, and
(4) maintenance scheduled or performed.
For drive-by inspections, the date of inspection and any maintenance performed must be recorded.
d. Information Retrieval. An airport sponsor may use any form of record keeping it deems appropriate, so long
as the information and records produced by the pavement survey can be retrieved to provide a report to the
FAA as may be required.
e. Reference. Refer to Advisory Circular 150/5380-6, “Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport
Pavements,” for specific guidelines and procedures for maintaining airport pavements and establishing an
effective maintenance program. Specific types of distress, their probable causes, inspection guidelines, and
recommended methods of repair are presented.
12. The Sponsor agrees to perform the following:
a. Furnish a construction management program to FAA prior to the start of construction which shall
detail the measures and procedures to be used to comply with the quality control provisions of the
construction contract, including, but not limited to, all quality control provisions and tests required
by the Federal specifications. The program shall include as a minimum:
(1) The name of the person representing the Sponsor who has overall responsibility for contract
administration for the project and the authority to take necessary actions to comply with the
contract.
(2) Names of testing laboratories and consulting engineer firms with quality control responsibilities
on the project, together with a description of the services to be provided.
(3) Procedures for determining that testing laboratories meet the requirements of the American
Society of Testing and Materials standards on laboratory evaluation, referenced in the contract
specifications (D 3666, C 1077).
(4) Qualifications of engineering supervision and construction inspection personnel.
(5) A listing of all tests required by the contract specifications, including the type and frequency of
tests to be taken, the method of sampling, the applicable test standard, and the acceptance criteria
or tolerances permitted for each type of test.
151 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 5
(6) Procedures for ensuring that the tests are taken in accordance with the program, that they are
documented daily, and that the proper corrective actions, where necessary, are undertaken.
b. Submit at completion of the project, a final test and quality control report documenting the results of
all tests performed, highlighting those tests that failed or that did not meet the applicable test
standard. The report shall include the pay reductions applied and the reasons for accepting any out-
of-tolerance material. An interim test and quality control report shall be submitted, if requested by
the FAA.
c. Failure to provide a complete report as described in paragraph b, or failure to perform such tests,
shall, absent any compelling justification, result in a reduction in Federal participation for costs
incurred in connection with construction of the applicable pavement. Such reduction shall be at the
discretion of the FAA and will be based on the type or types of required tests not performed or not
documented and will be commensurate with the proportion of applicable pavement with respect to
the total pavement constructed under the grant agreement.
d. The FAA, at its discretion, reserves the right to conduct independent tests and to reduce grant
payments accordingly if such independent tests determine that sponsor test results are inaccurate.
13. Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, the Sponsor will not acquire or permit any contractor or
subcontractor to acquire any steel or manufactured products produced outside the United States to be
used for any project for airport development or noise compatibility for which funds are provided under
this grant. The Sponsor will include in every contract a provision implementing this special condition.
14. In accordance with Section 47108(b) of the Act, as amended, the maximum obligation of the United States, as
stated in Condition No. 1 of this Grant Offer:
a. may not be increased for a planning project;
b. may be increased by not more than 15 percent for development projects;
c. may be increased by not more than 15 percent for land projects.
15. The Sponsor agrees to comply with the Assurances attached to this offer, which replaces the assurances
that accompanied the Application for Federal Assistance.
16. It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the United States shall not be
obligated to make any payments under this agreement until the Airport Layout Plan required for this
project has been approved by the FAA.
17. TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
a. Provisions applicable to a recipient that is a private entity.
1. You as the recipient, your employees, subrecipients under this award, and subrecipients’ employees
may not—
152 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 6
i. Engage in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award
is in effect;
ii. Procure a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; or
iii. Use forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award.
2. We as the Federal awarding agency may unilaterally terminate this award, without penalty, if you or a
subrecipient that is a private entity –
i. Is determined to have violated a prohibition in paragraph a.1 of this award term; or
ii. Has an employee who is determined by the agency official authorized to terminate the
award to have violated a prohibition in paragraph a.1 of this award term through conduct that is
either—
A. Associated with performance under this award; or
B. Imputed to you or the subrecipient using the standards and due process for imputing the
conduct of an individual to an organization that are provided in 2 CFR part 180, “OMB
Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement),” as implemented by our agency at 49 CFR Part 29.
b. Provision applicable to a recipient other than a private entity. We as the Federal awarding agency may
unilaterally terminate this award, without penalty, if a subrecipient that is a private entity--
1. Is determined to have violated an applicable prohibition in paragraph a.1 of this award term; or
2. Has an employee who is determined by the agency official authorized to terminate the award to have
violated an applicable prohibition in paragraph a.1 of this award term through conduct that is either--
i. Associated with performance under this award; or
ii. Imputed to the subrecipient using the standards and due process for imputing the conduct
of an individual to an organization that are provided in 2 CFR part 180, “OMB Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement),” as implemented
by our agency at 49 CFR Part 29.
c. Provisions applicable to any recipient.
1. You must inform us immediately of any information you receive from any source alleging a violation
of a prohibition in paragraph a.1 of this award term.
2. Our right to terminate unilaterally that is described in paragraph a.2 or b of this section:
i. Implements section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as
amended (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)), and
ii. Is in addition to all other remedies for noncompliance that are available to us under this
award.
3. You must include the requirements of paragraph a.1 of this award term in any subaward you make to
a private entity.
d. Definitions. For purposes of this award term:
1. “Employee” means either:
i. An individual employed by you or a subrecipient who is engaged in the performance of
the project or program under this award; or
ii. Another person engaged in the performance of the project or program under this award
and not compensated by you including, but not limited to, a volunteer or individual whose
services are contributed by a third party as an in-kind contribution toward cost sharing or
matching requirements.
2. “Forced labor” means labor obtained by any of the following methods: the recruitment, harboring,
transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force,
fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or
slavery.
3. “Private entity”:
153 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 7
i. Means any entity other than a State, local government, Indian tribe, or foreign public
entity, as those terms are defined in 2 CFR 175.25.
ii. Includes:
A. A nonprofit organization, including any nonprofit institution of higher education,
hospital, or tribal organization other than one included in the definition of Indian tribe at
2 CFR 175.25(b).
B. A for-profit organization.
4. “Severe forms of trafficking in persons,” “commercial sex act,” and “coercion” have the meanings
given at section 103 of the TVPA, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7102).
18. The Sponsor understands and agrees that in accordance with 49 USC 47111, and the Airport District Office's
concurrence, that no payments totaling more than 97.5 percent of United States Government’s share of the
project’s estimated allowable cost may be made before the project is determined to be satisfactorily completed.
Satisfactorily complete means the following: (1) The project results in a complete, usable unit of work as defined
in the grant agreement; and (2) The sponsor submits necessary documents showing that the project is substantially
complete per the contract requirements, or has a plan (that FAA agrees with) that addresses all elements contained
on the punch list.
19. The Sponsor shall provide for a Single Audit in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
133. The Sponsor shall submit the Single Audit reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse on the
Federal Audit Clearinghouse's Internet Data Entry System at
http://harvester.census.gov/fac/collect/ddeindex.html. The Sponsor shall also provide one copy of the completed
A-133 Audit to the Denver Airports District Office.
20. The Sponsor agrees to submit a Federal Financial Report (FAA Form SF-425) for all open grants to
the Airports District Office within 90 days following the end of each Federal fiscal year and with each
Final Project Closeout Report.
The Sponsor further agrees to submit an Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement (FAA Form
SF-271 for construction projects) or Request for Advance or Reimbursement (FAA Form SF-270 for
non-construction projects) to the Airports District Office within 90 days following the end of each
Federal fiscal year and with each Final Project Closeout Report.
154 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 8
The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Project Application incorporated herein shall be evidenced
by execution of this instrument by the Sponsor, as hereinafter provided, and this Offer and Acceptance shall comprise a Grant
Agreement, as provided by Title 49, U.S.C., Subtitle VII, Part B, as amended constituting the contractual obligations and rights of the
United States and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as
provided herein. Such Grant Agreement shall become effective upon the Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
John P. Bauer
Manager, Denver Airports District Office
Part II - Acceptance
The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained
in the Project Application and incorporated materials referred to in the foregoing Offer and do hereby accept this Offer and by such
acceptance agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this Offer and in the Project Application.
Executed this day of , 2013
CITY OF FT. COLLINS, COLORADO
(SEAL) (Signature Sponsor's Designated Official Representative)
By: Darin Atteberry
(Typed Name of Sponsor’s Designated Representative)
Attest: ____________________________ City Manager
(Typed Title of Sponsor’s Designated Official Representative)
Certificate of Sponsor's Attorney
I, , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify:
That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws of the State of
COLORADO. Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor and Sponsor’s official
representative has been duly authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws
of the said State and the Act. In addition, for grants involving projects to be carried out on property not owned by the Sponsor, there
are no legal impediments that will prevent full performance by the Sponsor. Further, it is my opinion that the said Grant Agreement
constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance with the terms thereof.
Dated at this day of , 2013
Signature of Sponsor's Attorney
155 of 465
FAA Form 5100-37 (7/90) 9
The Sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained
in the Project Application and incorporated materials referred to in the foregoing Offer and do hereby accept this Offer and by such
acceptance agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this Offer and in the Project Application.
Executed this day of , 2013
CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO
(SEAL) (Signature Sponsor's Designated Official Representative)
By: William D. Cahill
(Typed Name of Sponsor’s Designated Representative)
Attest: ____________________________ City Manager
(Typed Title of Sponsor’s Designated Official Representative)
Certificate of Sponsor's Attorney
I, , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify:
That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws of the State of
COLORADO. Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor and Sponsor’s official
representative has been duly authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws
of the said State and the Act. In addition, for grants involving projects to be carried out on property not owned by the Sponsor, there
are no legal impediments that will prevent full performance by the Sponsor. Further, it is my opinion that the said Grant Agreement
constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance with the terms thereof.
Dated at this day of , 2013
Signature of Sponsor's Attorney
156 of 465
RESOLUTION 2013-056
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
2013 GRANT AGREEMENT (AIP PROJECT NO. 3-08-0023-32-2013)
WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
AT THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
WHEREAS, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland (the “Cities”) jointly own and operate
the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Cities, by resolution, have adopted the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) provides grant funding to eligible
airports to enable those airports to pursue, in a timely manner, capital improvements included within
an adopted Airport Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have applied for $1,900,000 in FAA capital grant funding (“2013
Grant Funding”) for the purpose of rehabilitating the north half of the general aviation apron and
installing perimeter fencing around the airport (“AIP Project No. 3-08-0023-32-2013”); and
WHEREAS, the Cities have been offered $1,536,295 of the 2013 Grant Funding and
anticipate the FAA's offer of the balance of $365,469 shortly; and
WHEREAS, any capital grants funds provided by the FAA will be subject to the Cities’
execution of the standard FAA grant agreement that will be in substantially the form of prior years’
FAA grant agreements modified to reflect the purpose of AIP Project No. 3-08-0023-32-2013 (“2013
Grant Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, projects listed in AIP Project No. 3-08-0023-32-2013 are identified in the Fort
Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport Master Plan as first priority projects; and
WHEREAS, the matching local funds of ten percent necessary to accept the initial capital
grant funding of $1,536,295 from the FAA are divided equally between the State of Colorado and
the Cities and have been previously appropriated as part of the Airport’s 2013 budget; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado's matching local funds of five percent necessary to accept
the balance of the Grant Funding of $365,469 from the FAA have been appropriated, and the Cities'
required matching local funds of five percent are available in Airport Reserves and will be
appropriated upon approval and receipt of the balance of the Grant Funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO as follows:
157 of 465
Section 1. That the 2013 Grant Agreement is hereby approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized, following consultation with the
City Attorney, to modify the 2013 Grant Agreement in form or substance as deemed necessary to
effectuate the purposes of this Resolution or to protect the interests of the City.
Section 3. That the City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed
to execute the 2013 Grant Agreement on behalf of the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
158 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Aaron Iverson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-057 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the
Colorado Department of Transportation for the Purpose of Establishing Performance, Monitoring and Mitigation
Parameters for the Jefferson Street Corridor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council approved the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report on June 5, 2012. This included the
recommended preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as well as actions needed to amend the
Jefferson/Riverside (SH14) Access Management Plan. City staff worked with Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) over the past year to finalize an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with CDOT regarding the recommended
changes for Jefferson Street. This IGA spells out the conditions CDOT and the City agree to for converting Jefferson
Street from a four lane street to a three lane street. This includes the required monitoring of traffic conditions before
and after the conversion, mitigation measures to address problems if needed and if all mitigation measures fail the
IGA allows CDOT to convert Jefferson Street back to four lanes (as a last measure).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study began in May 2010. The Study had several purposes, including
finding the most suitable solution to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street
corridor, enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit, and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks
along this busy arterial/highway road.
The project sought to balance interests among different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA,
Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroads, local business/property owners, and the
general public.
The adopted recommendation includes reconfiguring Jefferson Street from the existing four lane configuration to a
“3-lane” street, with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian streetscape and urban design features from
North College to Mountain Avenue, including improvements to the Jefferson and Lincoln/Mountain signalized
intersection. This alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer County,
and received strong support from the community.
The IGA specifies the conditions for proceeding with the Jefferson improvements and includes in part the following
key elements:
• Requirements for the City to monitor safety and traffic operations at specified milestones
• Requirements for the City to monitor truck counts on Jefferson as well as three probable diversion routes: Owl
Canyon, Vine Drive and SH1/CR50
• The stipulation that if safety, traffic operation or truck diversion are found to be deficient (as defined in the IGA)
as a result of the Jefferson Project, then modifications or mitigations should be explored. If no modification
or mitigation solves the issue then CDOT reserves the right to return Jefferson to a four lane configuration.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The Alternatives Analysis study used approximately
$400,000 of the project budget. The majority of the remaining project budget ($1.3 million) will be used to fund final
engineering and design of the proposed improvements.
159 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 18
The construction cost of the recommended preferred alternatives, including both the corridor and intersection
improvements, for Jefferson Street is approximately $7.2 million. Additional funding is needed for the construction
phase.
The recommended Jefferson Street improvements will have a direct economic impact on over 35 businesses fronting
Jefferson Street. The investment in the public infrastructure will support private investment along the corridor, which
has a number of areas with potential for redevelopment and/or reinvestment. This project will also help strengthen
the connection between Downtown, the River District, and the Lincoln Avenue corridor which are economic catalyst
areas for the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian-oriented,
context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for our Downtown environment and supports the City
Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Downtown River District Plan goals for the heart of our community. The
improvements to Jefferson Street and the signalized intersection will calm traffic traveling through the corridor
improving the pedestrian environment and encouraging the use of walking, biking, and transit access to/from the
corridor which will result in air quality improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented and received support for the 3-lane recommendation from the following boards or commissions:
Downtown Development Authority, Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board and the Economic Advisory
Commission.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project including stakeholder
coordination, business and property owner meetings and public meetings.
160 of 465
RESOLUTION 2013-057
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE, MONITORING AND
MITIGATION PARAMETERS FOR THE JEFFERSON STREET CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, in May 2010, the City Council authorized the Jefferson Street Alternatives
Analysis Study to be performed, which study was reported to and approved by the City Council on
June 5, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report included recommended
preferred corridor and intersection alternatives and actions needed to amend the Jefferson/Riverside
(State Highway 14) Access Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the preferred analysis includes the reconfiguration of Jefferson Street from the
existing four-lane street to a three-lane street with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian
streetscape and urban design features extending from North College Avenue to Mountain Avenue,
as well as certain intersection improvements to the Jefferson Street/Lincoln/Mountain Avenue
signalized intersections; and
WHEREAS, the proposed alternative has received the support of the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT), the Downtown Development Authority, Larimer County, and various
members of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority, the Transportation Board, the Planning
and Zoning Board, and the Economic Advisory Commission have all supported the adopted
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, CDOT and the City desire to enter into an intergovernmental agreement spelling
out conditions for converting Jefferson Street from a four-lane street to a three-lane street, which
agreement will include requirements for the City to monitor safety and traffic operations at specified
milestones and for the City to monitor truck counts on Jefferson Street as well as on three probable
diversion routes; and
WHEREAS, the intergovernmental agreement also provides that if safety, traffic operation
or truck diversion are found to be deficient as a result of the Jefferson Street corridor project, then
modifications should be explored and, if no modifications are plausible, then CDOT has the right
to return the Jefferson Street corridor to a four-lane configuration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the intergovernmental agreement between
the City and CDOT for the purpose of establishing performance, monitoring and mitigation
parameters for the Jefferson Street corridor, is in the best interests of the City.
161 of 465
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement between
the City and CDOT for the purpose of establishing performance, monitoring and mitigation
parameters for the Jefferson Street corridor in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”,
with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City
Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate
the purpose of this Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July, A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
162 of 465
Page 1 of 15
City of Fort Collins ID 331000694
SH14 (Jefferson St.) Construction Project
REGION 4 (rp)
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, executed this ___ day of ________________ 20___, by and between the
State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT or
the State), and the CITY OF FORT COLLINS (City or Local Agency), P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins,
CO 80522-0580, CDOT Vendor #: 2000023, the Local Agency and the State shall hereinafter be
referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
1. Required approval, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with
appropriate agencies.
2. Pursuant to 43-2-104.5 CRS as amended, the State may contract with Local Agencies to provide
maintenance and construction of highways that are part of the state (or local agency) highway
system.
3. Section §§ 43-2-102 and 103, C.R.S require the State to maintain state highways (including
where such highways extend through a city or an incorporated town), and § 43-2-135 describes
certain specific responsibilities of the State and affected local entities (respectively) with respect
to state highways that are also part of a local street system.
4. Jefferson Street is a significant local roadway for the City and is also part of the State
Highway System as State Highway 14.
5. Jefferson Street, as State Highway 14, is part of a CDOT designated Regional Truck Route.
6. The City obtained funding for a feasibility study for Jefferson Street from the North Front
Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO).
7. CDOT and the City participated jointly in the Jefferson Street Feasibility Study, along with the
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Colorado
Motor Carriers Association (CMCA).
8. The feasibility study concluded that part of Jefferson Street, based upon current traffic
forecasts, can provide adequate mobility and safety if modified to have only one lane in the
southeast bound direction.
EXHIBIT A
163 of 465
Page 2 of 15
9. The final design and construction of the project will need to continue in the CDOT Local
Agency and/or CDOT Permit Process, and additional approvals and clearances will be required
before the project can be constructed.
10. “The work” under this agreement shall consist of final design and upon approval by CDOT,
construction of Jefferson Street as shown in Exhibit A.
11. CDOT and the City mutually agree that it is in the interest of both parties to maintain SH14
including Jefferson Street as a designated truck route, both parties will work together to maintain
access and mobility standards for all traffic including trucks and to meet minimum truck route
design criteria for large commercial long haul vehicles on SH14. CDOT will consent to the
modifications agreed upon, but it is important that the State have the flexibility to return the
corridor back to a four lane configuration in the event Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) occur.
12. The Parties desire to enter into this Contract to memorialize the Local Agency’s
responsibilities corresponding with the construction of the Project and its associated maintenance
(Maintenance) as detailed in Exhibit A;
13. The Parties have the authority, as provided in Sections §§ 29-1-203, 43-1-106, 43-2-103,
43-2-104, and 43-2-144 C.R.S., as amended, and in applicable ordinance or resolution duly
passed and adopted by the Local Agency, to enter into contract with the Local Agency for the
purpose of maintaining the Project after construction.
14. The Local Agency has adequate facilities to perform the desired design, construction and
maintenance services on SH14.
THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT:
Section 1. Scope of Work
The Work under this agreement shall consist of final design and upon approval by
CDOT, construction of Jefferson Street as shown in Exhibit A
Section 2. Order of Precedence
In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this contract and its exhibits, such
conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order
of priority:
1. This contract
2. Exhibit A (Scope of Work and Maps)
3. Exhibit B (Local Agency Ordinance or Resolution)
Section 3. State and Local Agency Commitments
164 of 465
Page 3 of 15
A. State Commitments
1. CDOT will participate in good faith during the final design and construction phases.
2. CDOT will continue to contract with the City through its current maintenance
agreements, for routine maintenance and traffic signal maintenance, as mutually agreed
by both parties.
3. CDOT will support traffic study efforts, including traffic safety analysis, to the extent
agreed upon by the Parties in advance of any work being required.
B. Local Agency Commitments
1. The City will seek its own funding sources, which may include Federal, State, local or
private funds, for the Jefferson Street Project and its associated costs. The City
acknowledges that CDOT is not committed to providing any funding to the project per
the Schedule of Responsibility under Section 3, B, 10.
2. The City will obtain Construction Permits and Special Use and Landscaping Permits
requiring the City to be responsible for all maintenance and upkeep per 43-2-135;
(Division of Authority Over Streets), including storm drainage, curbs, sidewalks,
lighting, landscaping and any urban design features not within the paved section of the
highway.
3. The City is required to monitor traffic safety and operations of the project area and
produce traffic studies of the project per the schedule of performance items included in
this document.
4. As used herein the term "maintenance services" shall mean only those maintenance
services normally performed by the State to comply with its responsibility under §§ 43-2-
102 and 43-2-135, C.R.S., as described in the State's then current "Maintenance Level of
Service Manual" (“MLOS”), as amended, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
The Local Agency shall obtain a copy of that Manual from the CDOT Region 4 before it
performs any maintenance services under this Contract.
a. Maintenance services to be performed by the Local Agency, under this Contract,
shall meet or exceed a CDOT level of service of B, per the MLOS manual
(reference roadside facilities/drainage).
b. Local Agency shall also continue to perform, at its own expense, all
activities/duties on the Project the Local Agency is required to perform by §43-2-
135 (1) (a) and (e), C.R.S., as amended.
5. The Local Agency shall perform the Maintenance on the Project for its useful life. At the
end of its useful life, or at such time the Local Agency decides to no longer maintain the
Project, the Local Agency shall coordinate with CDOT to return the area back to the
condition that existed prior to the installation of the Project.
6. Local Agency, its agents, employees, and assigns shall obtain a permit to access CDOT
ROW for construction of the Project and for subsequent maintenance. The Local Agency
shall notify CDOT Region 4 Traffic of any anticipated lane closures in advance of the
needed closure. If CDOT Region 4 has staff available, the staff may assist the Local
Agency with the closure. For this Project, CDOT has granted the City the ability to
perform lane closures under the City’s permit program for a period of three years (March
19, 2013 to March 18, 2016) as stated in the March 19th, 2013 letter (the Letter) from the
165 of 465
Page 4 of 15
Acting CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer to the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer.
The Letter is incorporated herein by this reference. However, should CDOT determine
that the City’s lane closure program is not meeting safety and mobility standards, CDOT
reserves the right to cancel the granted approval thereby defaulting the lane closures to
CDOT Region 4’s Lane Closure Strategy.
7. The performance of such services shall comply with the same standards that are currently
used by the State for the State's performance of such services. The State's Regional
Transportation Director, or the Director’s representative, shall determine the then current
applicable maintenance standards for the maintenance services. Any standards/directions
provided by the State's representative to the Local Agency concerning the maintenance
services shall be in writing. The Local Agency shall contact the State Region office and
obtain those standards before the Local Agency performs such services.
8. The Local Agency shall perform the maintenance services in a satisfactory manner and in
accordance with the terms of this Contract. The State reserves the right to determine the
proper quantity and quality of the maintenance services performed by the Local Agency,
as well as the adequacy of such services, under this Contract. The State will notify the
Local Agency in writing of any deficiency in the maintenance services. The Local
Agency shall commence corrective action within 24 hours of receiving actual or
constructive notice of such deficiency: a) from the State; b) from its own observation; or
c) by any other means. In the event the Local Agency, for any reason, does not or cannot
correct the deficiency within 24 hours, the State reserves the right to correct the
deficiency and to deduct the actual cost of such work from the subsequent payments to
the Local Agency, or to bill the Local Agency for such work.
9. As part of the construction of the Project, the Local Agency will purchase a small portion
of right of way (ROW), and accordingly:
a. Prior to acquiring ROW,` the City shall provide to CDOT Region 4 ROW
Department a set of ROW plan for review.
b. With the purchase of right of way for a State highway, including areas of
influence, the Local Agency shall immediately convey title to such right of way to
CDOT after the Local Agency obtains title.
c. The acquisition/relocation activities shall comply with all applicable federal and
state statutes and regulations, including but not limited to the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended and
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for
Federal and Federally Assisted Programs as amended (49 C.F.R. Part 24),
CDOT’s Right of Way Manual, and CDOT’s Policy and Procedural Directives.
10. Schedule of Responsibility
a. Definitions
i. “Corridor Project” shall be defined as the segment of SH 14 (Jefferson
Street) or adjacent or adjoining roadways, which will be modified by the
Project’s construction activities from its current configuration, including
Right-of-Way, pavements, curb, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, drainage,
lighting, traffic control, landscaping and urban design features.
166 of 465
Page 5 of 15
ii. “Influence Areas” shall be defined as:
The adjacent intersection of College Avenue and Willow/Cherry
Streets
Parallel routes at Owl Canyon, Vine Drive and SH1/CR50
Any adjacent CDOT facility with traffic impacts attributable to
modifications made to the project area.
iii. “Traffic Studies” Shall be defined as studies to analyze the traffic
operations and safety impacts of the Corridor Project, including any area
which will be influenced by the Project per the definitions. Traffic Studies
shall include an engineering analysis of all KPIs listed in Section 4 and
shall be performed by the City and provided to CDOT per the
Performance Milestones schedule in Section 3, B.
11. Responsibilities
a. Project Construction - The City shall be responsible for acquiring 100% of the
funding and paying all costs associated with the design and construction of the
Corridor Project (defined specifically in Section 3, B and in Exhibit A).
b. From Opening Day through Year 5 - The City shall be responsible for
acquiring 100% of the funding and paying all costs associated with monitoring,
studies, modifications, improvements, alterations and any mitigation measures
required for the Corridor Project and its influence areas. Funding sources for
these activities are not restricted but shall be per Section 3, B. After year 5 the
responsibilities of the Parties will default to guidelines under 43-2-135 CRS.
12. Performance Milestones
a. Prior to Construction
Traffic counts shall be performed within one year prior to beginning construction
of the Jefferson Street Project. These traffic counts shall include truck
classification counts to establish baseline levels of truck traffic using the Jefferson
Street corridor. Pre-construction traffic counts shall be taken on Jefferson Street
and also on the most probable diversion routes: “Owl Canyon”, “Vine Drive” and
“SH1 – CR50” as defined below to define base condition traffic levels on these
routes:
Owl Canyon – SH14/287 to/from I25 via CR72 and CR70
Vine Drive – SH14/287 to/from I25 via Vine Drive
SH1/CR50 – SH14/287 to/from I25 via SH1 and CR50
Permits or permissions to obtain data from county roads shall be obtained as may
be required. This data shall be used to support the evaluation of the performance
milestones in this Section and KPIs listed in Section 4.
b. Year 2 after Completion of Construction
Two years after completion of the Corridor Project, traffic counts shall be retaken
on Jefferson Street and compared to the counts taken before the beginning of
construction as part of a comprehensive traffic study of the project area. The
study shall be performed and provided by the City to CDOT for review.
Specifically as pertains to trucks, a reduction of more than 10% in the number and
167 of 465
Page 6 of 15
percentage of trucks will require recounting the traffic on the diversion routes
listed above. At this time the City and CDOT shall work in partnership to
determine:
1. If the reduction is due to changes from the Jefferson Street project,
or
2. Are due to outside influences which may be beyond the City’s
control, and
3. If a course of action is necessary, then
4. What strategy and plan of action is to be taken.
c. Year 5 after completion of Construction
An additional Traffic Study shall be performed at the conclusion of the fifth year
of operation after completion of construction of the Corridor Project. As before, a
Study report shall be provided by the City to CDOT for review. The Parties shall
cooperatively determine if KPIs have been exceeded and agree on a course of
action as necessary. If no truck diversion is observed at the time of the two year
study, the requirement to evaluate and mitigate truck diversion shall not be
required to be carried over to the 5 year study.
At a minimum, two studies shall be performed over the 5-year term to analyze the
operational and safety performance of the Corridor Project; unless otherwise
agreed to by the Parties. The studies shall facilitate the required actions of the
Performance Milestones in Section 3, B and the Key Performance Indicators in
Section 4.
Section 4. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will trigger additional evaluation by the
Parties. The Parties agree to investigate other solutions, enhancements or modifications
(mitigation measures) that address the issues indicated by the KPIs. Any required costs for these
investigations shall be assumed by the Parties per the schedule included above in Section 3, B
and Section 4.
In the event mitigating measures cannot be made to acceptably address the KPIs, then the State
reserves the right to return Jefferson Street to four lanes; with two lanes in each direction.
KPIs for State Highway 14/287:
1. Double left requirement for SB College Avenue to Jefferson Street:
The Parties agree to:
When and if congestion and or queue spillback blocking becomes a problem, as defined
below in this KPI, on SH 14/US 287 at College Avenue and Jefferson Street, the City
shall work with CDOT to find a mutually agreeable measure to mitigate these issues. The
City may consider as a possible strategy, the extension of the southbound left turn queue
storage lane on College Avenue at Jefferson Street and closure of the northbound left turn
168 of 465
Page 7 of 15
lane on College Avenue at Cherry Street to provide additional queuing and storage
capacity for the southbound left turning traffic.
If this or any other mutually agreed upon and implemented mitigation measure cannot
reduce queue lengths and/or delays to within acceptable levels as determined by this KPI,
then a double left turn lane may be required by CDOT to resolve these issues. A double
left turn lane will require reconfiguring the Jefferson Street Corridor Project back to a
four lane configuration.
CDOT understands that this action shall only be undertaken as a last resort when no other
mitigation measures, which can be agreed to by both parties, will resolve the issue of
congestion or queue spillback blocking of traffic on SH14 or US287. CDOT resolves to
work with the City in the event that mitigation is required and to work in good faith to
find a solution which is acceptable to both parties.
Performance Indicators shall be considered to be exceeded for this KPI if the following
conditions are true:
Queue lengths –When the 50th percentile (or average) queue length is seen to
extend beyond available storage and cause queue spillback blocking of
through lanes on SH 14/US 287 during the AM or PM peak hours, either by
field measurement (observed in half the signal cycles in the hour) and/or a
traffic study using either Synchro™ software or the Highway Capacity
Software (HCS), then this condition shall be considered exceeded and shall
require mitigation.
Level of Service –When the overall intersection LOS on SH 14/US 287 at
College Avenue and Jefferson Street, or any of its approaches which are on a
the State Highway, exceeds LOS D based on analysis of control delay using
either field measurement, Synchro™ software or HCS, Then this LOS shall
be considered as requiring mitigation.
Analysis of this KPI shall be included in both the 2 year traffic Study and the 5 year
traffic study but may be continuously monitored by either party and shown to be
exceeding the KPI at any time.
2. Mobility and Operational Levels of Service Requirement
The Parties agree:
To maintain an acceptable operational Level of Service on SH 14 for vehicle traffic
from, the intersection of College Avenue at Jefferson Street through the project area to,
and including, the intersection of Mountain/Lincoln Avenues and Jefferson Street on
State Highway 14. It should be noted that LOS for any of these intersections is not
projected to exceed LOS D by 2035 for either the “build” or “no-build” scenarios per the
Jefferson Street – Future Conditions Traffic Analysis or the Intersection Options Analysis
169 of 465
Page 8 of 15
for Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue studies. The City and CDOT have
agreed in previous negotiations that CDOT will allow a one letter reduction in LOS from
projected no-build conditions at these intersections with the construction of the project.
If mitigation strategies needed to control delay and queue lengths, are not effective, then
a four lane configuration shall be evaluated as a viable option for resolving these issues.
CDOT understands that this action shall only be undertaken as a last resort when no other
mitigation measures, which can be agreed to by both parties, will resolve the issue of
congestion or queue spillback blocking of traffic on SH14. CDOT resolves to work with
the City in the event that mitigation is required and to work in good faith to find a
solution which is acceptable to both parties.
Performance Indicators shall be considered to be exceeded for this KPI if the following
conditions are true:
Queue lengths –When the average queue length is seen to extend beyond
available storage for a turn lane and causes queue spillback blocking of
through lanes on SH 14 during the AM or PM peak hours, either by field
measurement (observed during half the cycles in the hour) and/or a traffic
study using either Synchro™ software or HCS (showing 50th percentile queue
length exceeding storage length), then this condition shall be considered to be
exceeding this KPI and shall require mitigation.
Level of Service – When the overall intersection LOS on SH 14 at either
Linden Street or Lincoln/Mountain Avenues, or any State Highway
approaches to these intersections, exceeds LOS C based on analysis of traffic
demand and control delay using either Synchro™ software or HCS, Then the
LOS at this intersection shall be considered to be exceeding this KPI and shall
require mitigation.
Queue lengths and LOS must be within the KPI or mitigation measures will be required.
If no mitigation measure can reduce queue lengths and/or delays by the agreed upon
timelines, then this KPI may be considered exceeded and may be used to require the
reconfiguration of the Jefferson Street Corridor Project per this agreement.
3. Traffic Safety Requirement
The Parties agree:
Safety is of paramount importance to all parties. The Parties agree to maintain to the
highest degree as is practicable, a safe and secure environment for vehicles, pedestrians
and bicyclists on the facilities included in the project area.
Currently, the safety of the project area, as measured by the safety performance on the
existing facility, is better than that measured for similar facilities of this type in Colorado.
170 of 465
Page 9 of 15
If the use of strategies to reduce crashes after completion of the project becomes
necessary, and acceptable levels are not achieved with implementation of mitigation
measures (and allowing an appropriate evaluation period), then a four- lane
reconfiguration shall be evaluated as a viable option for resolving any safety issues.
CDOT understands that this action shall only be undertaken as a last resort when no other
mitigation measures, which can be agreed to by both parties, will resolve the issue of
poor safety performance associated with the project. CDOT resolves to work with the
City in the event that mitigation is required and to work in good faith to find a solution
which is acceptable to both parties.
Key Performance Indicators for safety performance shall be per the following conditions:
Intersection Related Total Crash Frequencies– Total intersection related
crashes (adjusted to account for regression to the mean error as per the
Highway Safety Manual) shall be compared with a predicted crash history
determined using CDOT’s intersection Safety Performance Functions or
appropriate Highway Safety Manual methodologies. If the adjusted actual
crash history is at least one and one half standard deviation higher than the
predicted crash frequency, then this KPI shall be considered to be exceeded
requiring mitigation measures be put in place.
Non intersection related Total Crash Frequencies – Due to the relatively
short distance between intersections along the project length, it is not
anticipated that there will be a high incidence of non-intersection related
crashes. However, the parties agree to monitor the overall safety of the
project area as part of the traffic study program and mitigate any anomalies or
safety issues which the parties observe, and agree, require correction.
Binomial Probability (BP) Analysis of Crash Types –Crashes shall be
evaluated by specific type (i.e. Vehicle vs. pedestrian) as part of the regular
traffic study program in the project area. Patterns of a specific crash type
susceptible to correction, or exceeding the frequency of statewide average
levels for a specific facility and crash type shall be evaluated for cost effective
mitigation measures. As evaluation of crash type is less applicable to a single
KPI measure, the parties agree to evaluate this portion of the KPI with
additional latitude for engineering judgment and cooperative decision making
on mitigations required. Overall safety and crashes must be within the KPI
above as applicable, or mitigation measures shall be required. If no mitigation
measures are effective at improving safety to within expected levels as per this
agreement, then this KPI may be considered met and may be used to require
reevaluation of the configuration of the Jefferson Street project.
171 of 465
Page 10 of 15
Section 5. Record Keeping
The Local Agency shall maintain a complete file of all records, documents, commu-
nications, and other written materials, which pertain under this contract. The Local Agency shall
maintain such records for a period of three (3) years after the date of termination of this contract,
or for such further period as may be necessary to resolve any matters which may be pending.
The Local Agency shall make such materials available for inspection at all reasonable times and
shall permit duly authorized agents and employees of the State and FHWA to inspect the project
and to inspect, review and audit the project records.
Section 6. Termination Provisions
This contract may be terminated as follows:
A. This Contract may be terminated by either party and only upon written notice thereof sent by
registered, prepaid mail and received by the non-terminating party.
Notwithstanding subparagraph A above, this contract may also be terminated as follows:
B. Termination for Convenience. The State shall effect such termination by giving written
notice of termination to the Local Agency and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
twenty (20) days before the effective date of such termination.
C. Termination for Cause. If, through any cause, the Local Agency shall fail to fulfill, in a
timely and proper manner, its obligations under this contract, or if the Local Agency shall violate
any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the State shall thereupon have
the right to terminate this contract for cause by giving written notice to the Local Agency of its
intent to terminate and at least ten (10) days opportunity to cure the default or show cause why
termination is otherwise not appropriate. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished
documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports or other
material prepared by the Local Agency under this contract shall, at the option of the State,
become its property, and the Local Agency shall be entitled to receive just and equitable
compensation for any services and supplies delivered and accepted. The Local Agency shall be
obligated to return any payments advanced under the provisions of this contract.
Notwithstanding the above, the Local Agency shall not be relieved of liability to the State for
any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Local Agency,
and the State may withhold payment to the Local Agency for the purposes of mitigating its
damages until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from the Local Agency
is determined.
If after such termination it is determined, for any reason, that the Local Agency was not in
default or that the Local Agency’s action/inaction was excusable, such termination shall be
treated as a termination for convenience, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the
same as if the contract had been terminated for convenience, as described herein.
172 of 465
Page 11 of 15
Section 7. Legal Authority
The Local Agency warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this contract and
that it has taken all actions required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable law to exercise
that authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this contract and to
bind the Local Agency to its terms. The person(s) executing this contract on behalf of the Local
Agency warrants that such person(s) has full authorization to execute this contract.
Section 8. Representatives and Notice
The State will provide liaison with the Local Agency through the State's Region Director,
Region 4, 1420 2nd Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631. Said Region Director will also be
responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this contract and will also issue a "Notice
to Proceed" to the Local Agency for commencement of the Work. All communications relating
to the day-to-day activities for the work shall be exchanged between representatives of the
State’s Transportation Region 4 and the Local Agency. All communication, notices, and
correspondence shall be addressed to the individuals identified below. Either party may from
time to time designate in writing new or substitute representatives.
If to State: If to the Local Agency:
Long Nguyen, P.E.
CDOT Resident Engineer
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970) 350-2126
Dean Klingner
Interim Engineering Capital
Projects Manager
281 N. College
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
(970) 221-6511
Section 9. Successors
Except as herein otherwise provided, this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 10. Third Party Beneficiaries
It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of
this contract and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the
State and the Local Agency. Nothing contained in this contract shall give or allow any claim or
right of action whatsoever by any other third person. It is the express intention of the State and
the Local Agency that any such person or entity, other than the State or the Local Agency
receiving services or benefits under this contract shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only.
Section 11. Governmental Immunity
Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract to the contrary, no term or condition
of this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the
immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the Colorado Governmental
173 of 465
Page 12 of 15
Immunity Act, § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or hereafter amended. The parties
understand and agree that liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising out of
negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials and
employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as now or
hereafter amended and the risk management statutes, §§ 24-30-1501, et seq., C.R.S., as now or
hereafter amended.
Section 12. Term
The term of this Contract shall begin the date first above written and shall extend for the
useful life of the Project, unless earlier modified or terminated by written agreement of the
Parties. Upon termination, Section 3, C of this Contract shall apply.
Section 13. Severability
To the extent that this contract may be executed and performance of the obligations of the
parties may be accomplished within the intent of the contract, the terms of this contract are
severable, and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for
any reason, such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision
hereof.
Section 14. Waiver
The waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this contract shall not be
construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision, or
requirement, or of any other term, provision or requirement.
Section 15. Entire Understanding
This contract is intended as the complete integration of all understandings between the
parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have
any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation,
renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless
embodied in a writing executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal Rules.
Section 16. Survival of Contract Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that all
terms and conditions of this contract and the exhibits and attachments hereto which may require
continued performance, compliance or effect beyond the termination date of the contract shall
survive such termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the
event of such failure to perform or comply by the Local Agency.
Section 17. Modification and Amendment
A. This contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or
174 of 465
Page 13 of 15
State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically
be incorporated into and be part of this contract on the effective date of such change as if fully
set forth herein. Except as provided above, no modification of this contract shall be effective
unless agreed to in writing by both parties in an amendment to this contract that is properly
executed and approved in accordance with applicable law.
B. Either party may suggest renegotiation of the terms of this Contract, provided that the
Contract shall not be subject to renegotiation more often than annually, and that neither party
shall be required to renegotiate. If the parties agree to change the provisions of this Contract, the
renegotiated terms shall not be effective until this Contract is amended/modified accordingly in
writing. Provided, however, that the rates will be modified only if the party requesting the rate
change documents, in accord with then applicable cost accounting principles and standards
(including sections 24-107-101, et seq., C.R.S. and implementing regulations), that the requested
increase/decrease is based on and results from (and is proportionate to) an increase/decrease in
the "allowable costs" of performing the Work. Any such proposed renegotiation shall not be
effective unless agreed to in writing by both parties in an amendment to this contract that is
properly executed and approved by the State Controller or his delegee.
Section 18. Disputes
Except as otherwise provided in this contract, any dispute concerning a question
of fact arising under this contract which is not disposed of by agreement will be decided by the
Chief Engineer of the Department of Transportation. The decision of the Chief Engineer will be
final and conclusive unless, within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of a copy of such
written decision, the Local Agency mails or otherwise furnishes to the State a written appeal
addressed to the Executive Director of the Department of Transportation. In connection with any
appeal proceeding under this clause, the Local Agency shall be afforded an opportunity to be
heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. Pending final decision of a dispute
hereunder, the Local Agency shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract in
accordance with the Chief Engineer’s decision. The decision of the Executive Director or his
duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals will be final and conclusive
and serve as final agency action. This dispute clause does not preclude consideration of
questions of law in connection with decisions provided for herein. Nothing in this contract,
however, shall be construed as making final the decision of any administrative official,
representative, or board on a question of law.
Section 19. Does not supercede other agreements
This Contract is not intended to supercede or affect in any way any other agreement (if
any) that is currently in effect between the State and the Local Agency for other “maintenance
services” on State Highway rights-of-way within the jurisdiction of the Local Agency. Also, the
Local Agency shall also continue to perform, at its own expense, all such activities/duties (if
any) on such State Highway rights-of-ways that the Local Agency is required by applicable law
to perform.
175 of 465
Page 14 of 15
Section 20. Subcontractors
The Local Agency may subcontract for any part of the performance required under this
Contract, subject to the Local Agency first obtaining approval from the State for any particular
subcontractor. The State understands that the Local Agency may intend to perform some or all
of the services required under this Contract through a subcontractor. The Local Agency agrees
not to assign rights or delegate duties under this contract [or subcontract any part of the
performance required under the contract] without the express, written consent of the State [which
shall not be unreasonably withheld]. Except as herein otherwise provided, this agreement shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding only upon the parties hereto and their respective successors
and assigns.
Section 21. TABOR Clause
All financial obligations of the Parties that are payable after the current fiscal year are
contingent upon funds for this purpose being annually approved, budgeted and otherwise made
available by the governmental body or other appropriate authority, in its discretion.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
176 of 465
Page 15 of 15
ID 331000694
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS CONTRACT
LOCAL AGENCY: STATE OF COLORADO:
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, GOVERNOR
City of Fort Collins, Colorado By
Legal Name of Contracting Entity Timothy J. Harris, P.E., Executive Director
Department of Transportation
2000023
CDOT Vendor Number
Signature
Mayor, City of Fort Collins, Colorado
Print Name of the Mayor of Fort Collins
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Fort Collins City Attorney
CORPORATIONS:
(A corporate attestation is required.)
Attest (Seal) By
Fort Collins City Clerk (Place corporate seal here, if available)
177 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 7
178 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 7
179 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 7
180 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 4 of 7
181 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 5 of 7
182 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 6 of 7
183 of 465
Exhibit A
Exhibit A, Page 7 of 7
184 of 465
Exhibit B
LOCAL AGENCY
ORDINANCE
or
RESOLUTION
185 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-058 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District For Participation in a Joint Regional Water Treatment Solutions Study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff proposes to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to fund a joint study to examine options for regional water
treatment solutions between the Tri-Districts and the City of Fort Collins. The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District shall
be the lead agency entering into the contract with the consultant. The scope of any cooperative solution is strictly
limited to creating a business model of receiving raw water, treating it, and returning a finished potable water product
to the member entities at a wholesale rate. Options range from remaining independent, additional intergovernmental
agreements, combining facilities, or other options to be determined during the investigation phase of the study.
Acquisition and control of water rights or raw water storage is not part of this discussion. The utilities would maintain
separate control over their raw water and their distribution systems.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City and the Tri-Districts (comprised of East Larimer County Water District, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District,
and North Weld County Water District) each operate a water treatment plant, located next to each other on LaPorte
Avenue. Both plants treat the same raw water sources, although there are different blends available depending on the
water rights and time of the year, and distribute potable water to their customers. In addition, the City has the ability
to share potable water with North Weld and Fort Collins-Loveland through interconnections in its distribution system,
using long-standing agreements.
While regionalization has been discussed many times in the previous 30 years, there is a renewed interest in
determining the cost benefit for regional opportunities available to the utilities. Growth of the districts’ service area,
excess capacity in the City’s facility, and costs of providing water are the driving forces for this work. Capital costs
associated with new expansion, aging infrastructure, and efficiencies of operations and maintenance has led to the
desire to look at the financial issues associated with collaboration.
To that end, the Regional Water Cooperation Committee (RWCC), a committee made up of managers from each
utility, developed a scope of work to request a consultant to assist with the decision making process. While all four
entities agree in principle that collaborations between the utilities can only mean increased efficiencies, there has not
been a thorough analysis of the financial implications of regionalization.
CONSULTANT PROPOSALS
The RWCC developed institutional options of regionalization, including:
1. Stay the same (status quo)
2. Enhanced collaboration through Sales Agreements, but remain separate entities
3. Merger of treatment facilities, similar to an Authority model
4. Other option as determined by the consultant and the project team.
The committee conducted a rigorous request for qualifications from several (9) firms, and short-listed three, who then
provided more detailed proposals. The apparent preferred consultant, Arcadis/Red Oak Consulting, provided a strong
proposal that identified their approach through stakeholder engagement, integration of a work plan and analysis of
options. In the financial analysis they would provide:
1. Assessment of value and accounting of assets from the utilities
2. Development of fair and equitable wholesale and retail cost allocation
3. Present worth and future cost projects for alternatives
186 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 19
It was unanimously agreed by the RWCC that a third-party analysis was critical to determining the financial piece of
enhanced collaboration, particularly when evaluating regionalization through an authority model. The utilities would
maintain separate control over their raw water and their distribution systems. The Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
shall be the lead agency entering into the contract with the consultant.
This item was presented to the City Council at its June 25, 2013 Work Session. Councilmembers expressed concerns
about the final use of the treated water, as well as the governance of any joint operations. All options are being
considered and would be presented in the final report later this fall. Council expressed general consent to bring the
item forward for final consideration at its next regular Council meeting.
FUTURE ACTION REQUIRED
The investigation and analysis phases of the project are scheduled to be complete in the fall of 2013. Staff proposes
to hold a joint meeting of the City Council and District Boards to review the findings and determine our next course
of action.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The initial fee for the consultant providing these services is $220,185. This fee would be split evenly between the four
entities. Staff is recommending the IGA state that Fort Collins shall reimburse 25% of the final costs for the study, not
to exceed $75,000. Funds are available in our Water Enterprise Contingency Funds..
The individual Boards of the Tri-District entities have approved the expenditure of their shares of the cost. Upon
approve of this expenditure by the City Council for the Fort Collins portion, the RWCC will negotiate with Red Oak to
finalize the details of the scope of work.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As a result of this study, staff will have the information to truly understand any potential impacts to either the
environment or from a social perspective.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Water Board discussed this item at its June 20, 2013 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend City Council
consider approval of an Ordinance authorizing the joint funding of a Regional Water Treatment Solutions Study for
25 percent of the final cost with the City of Fort Collins’ share not to exceed $75,000.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board minutes, June 20, 2013
187 of 465
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, June 20, 2013
Approve Joint Funding of a Regionalization Feasibility Study with the Tri-Districts
(Attachments available upon request).
Water Engineering and Field Operations Manager Jon Haukaas introduced the item and shared
background information on the subject of regionalization.
The City of Fort Collins and the Tri-Districts (East Larimer County Water District, Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District, and North Weld County Water District) each operate a water treatment
plant, located next to each other on LaPorte Avenue. The City has the ability to share potable
water with North Weld and Fort Collins-Loveland through interconnections in its distribution
system.
Staff is currently investigating options for regional water solutions. Regionalization has been
discussed in the past and there is renewed interest in determining the cost benefit due to growth
in the service areas, excess capacity in the City’s facility, and the rising costs of treating water.
A Regional Water Cooperative Committee was established by an Intergovernmental Agreement
for Water Sharing and includes Operations Managers for each treatment facility.
Mr. Haukaas presented the reasoning behind the study:
Both plants serve the citizens of Fort Collins
Parties agree in principle that collaboration is a more sustainable approach and can
increase efficiencies.
A third party analysis is critical to determining the financial evaluations around costs.
A Request for Proposal was developed:
Scope of Work
Consultants will meet with Stakeholders to discuss individual concerns or constraints.
Focused around developing a cooperative business model to receive “raw water” from the
participants and return finished potable water.
Charging the members based on a Cost of Service model.
Mr. Haukaas presented some limits of the study:
Member parties shall maintain control and responsibility for water rights, raw water
storage, and distribution systems.
The consultants will present the results to the City and the Tri-Districts late 2013 or early 2014.
Mr. Haukaas presented the costs:
Initial fee is $220,185 split four ways
Fort Collins share would be approximately $55,050.
The three Water Districts have approved their contributions.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked if the amount of water used for hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’)
by North Weld will also be a part of the study. Mr. Haukaas stated this is not part of this
study. This particular study looks at options for water treatment, and the demands from
North Weld are not driving the study. Population growth in south Fort Collins is driving
the study.
ATTACHMENT 1
188 of 465
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, June 20, 2013
A board member inquired as to who brought the idea forward. Mr. Haukaas stated the
idea is a result of the discussions by the Regional Water Cooperative Committee.
A board member asked about options for sewer treatment as part of the project. Mr.
Haukaas stated staff has approached Boxelder Sanitation District to discuss options.
Currently, there are no opportunities to increase the customer base.
A board member asked if improvements to the plant would be necessary. Mr. Haukaas
stated a financial analysis is necessary to determine these costs.
Ms. Voytko shared background information on the Regional Water Cooperation Committee.
This committee includes Plant Managers and City Senior Managers. A subcommittee was
formed to look at the Request for Proposal. The subcommittee made a recommendation to the
full committee from a list of three possibilities. Mr. Haukaas reiterated the decision was made
based on the consultants’ qualifications. Costs were in a sealed envelope so the committee would
not automatically choose the low bid.
Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend City Council consider
approval of an Ordinance authorizing the joint funding of a Regional Water Treatment
Solutions Study for 25 percent of the final cost with the City of Fort Collins’ share not to
exceed $75,000. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion.
189 of 465
RESOLUTION 2013-058
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT
FOR PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT SOLUTIONS STUDY
WHEREAS, three area water districts, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (“FCLWD”),
the East Larimer County Water District (“ELCO”) and the North Weld County Water District
(“NWCWD”), together referred to as the Tri-Districts, cooperatively own and operate the Soldier
Canyon Filter Plant (the “Plant”), which is located near the City’s Water Treatment Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Districts provide drinking water service to customers within portions
of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins growth management area, Larimer County, Weld County and the
surrounding region, including the towns of Windsor, Eaton, Ault, Timnath, Pierce and Nunn, as well
as the Sunset Water District, and portions of the Northern Colorado Water Association; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Districts will need to expand the existing Plant at its current site to
continue to comply with applicable regulations and to meet future capacity needs; and
WHEREAS, as an alternative to expanding the Plant, the Tri-Districts, through FCLWD,
which already has intergovernmental agreements with the City for water sharing and water selling,
desire to confer with the City regarding possible arrangements under which the City might provide
for the treatment of a portion of its water flows to meet the Tri-Districts’ near term and future needs;
and
WHEREAS, the City has unused treatment capacity at its Water Treatment Facility, which
facility was constructed prior to water conservation efforts; and
WHEREAS, if such water treatment arrangements were made, the Tri-Districts would remain
independent from the City and the City will assess only those charges directly or indirectly related
to the use of its treatment capacity for the Tri-Districts’ water flows; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Districts would provide their own raw water to the City for treatment;
and
WHEREAS, consolidation of water treatment services would eliminate construction at the
Plant and increase efficiencies that could benefit the City, the Tri-Districts and the region; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-041, authorizing
the City Manager to investigate options for a cooperative arrangement that would provide water
treatment services to the Tri-Districts and to negotiate a proposed agreement for future Council
consideration; and
190 of 465
WHEREAS, in order to more fully develop and evaluate options for cooperative
arrangements and then prepare a proposal for City Council consideration if a desirable alternative
is identified, the Tri-Districts have worked with City staff to develop a proposal for a study by a
outside experts of the technical and financial aspects of alternatives for cooperation (the “Study”);
and
WHEREAS, FCLWD is willing to coordinate the Study for the benefit of the Tri-Districts
and the City, provided that each of the four entities pay twenty-five percent of the overall cost; and
WHEREAS, the City’s share of the costs of the Study is expected to be approximately
$55,000, and will be limited to no more than $75,000; and
WHEREAS, the funds required to pay the City’s share of the costs are appropriated and
available in the Water Enterprise Contingency Fund; and
WHEREAS, City staff has proposed that the City enter into an intergovernmental agreement
with FCLWD (the “Agreement”), in order to provide for ongoing City staff involvement in directing
and reviewing the work of the outside experts preparing the Study, and to provide for payment by
each of the parties of an equivalent share of the Study costs; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 16 of the City Charter of the City empowers the City Council,
by ordinance or resolution, to enter into contracts with other governmental bodies to furnish
governmental services and make charges for such services or enter into cooperative or joint activities
with other governmental bodies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement for the
Funding and Coordinating of a Regional Water Treatment Solutions Study between the City and
FCLWD consistent with the terms of this Resolution, with such additional terms and conditions as
the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate
to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July, A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
191 of 465
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
WITHDRAWN
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-059 Making a Liaison Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution appoints Mayor Karen Weitkunat as the liaison to the Planning and Zoning Board, replacing
Councilmember Gino Campana.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2013-059
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING A LIAISON APPOINTMENT TO THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council appoints Councilmembers to serve as liaisons to the City’s
boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 2013-039 named Councilmember Gino Campana as liaison to the
Planning and Zoning Board; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to appoint a different liaison to the Planning and Zoning
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Mayor Karen Weitkunat is hereby appointed to serve as the liaison to the Planning
and Zoning Board.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July, A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
193 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-060 Making Appointments to the Citizen Review Board and the Golf Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation of James O’Neill. Mayor Karen
Weitkunat and Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak reviewed applicants on file and elected to interview the applicants. After
conducting interviews, Mayor Weitkunat and Mayor Pro Tem Horak recommend Austin Saunders to fill the vacancy
with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2016.
One vacancy currently exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of Robert Visocky. Since there were no
applicants on file, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw elected to readvertise for the
vacancy. After conducting interviews, Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw recommend
Tim Martinez to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
194 of 465
RESOLUTION 2013-060
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD AND THE GOLF BOARD
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation
of James O’Neill; and
WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Golf Board due to the resignation of Robert
Visocky; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make appointments to fill the vacancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following named person is hereby appointed to fill the current vacancies on the
Citizen Review Board and the Golf Board, with a term to begin immediately and to expire as set
forth after the name:
Citizen Review Board Expiration of Term
Austin Saunders December 31, 2016
Golf Board Expiration of Term
Tim Martinez December 31, 2014
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
195 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Lindsay Ex
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Urban Agriculture.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 Amending the Land Use Code to by the Addition of Provisions
Pertaining to Urban Agriculture.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 Amending Chapter 4, Article II & III of the City Code Related to the
Care and Keeping of Animals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to better align the Land Use and City Code with City Plan by allowing urban
agriculture land uses in all zone districts, expand the districts where farmers markets are allowed, and allow
a broader range and number of animals to be raised in the City.
City Plan contains several principle and policy statements aimed at promoting local food production. Several City
Departments are coordinating with numerous public, private, and academic entities to implement these principles and
policies. However, the Land Use Code is in direct conflict with City Plan as it only allows urban agriculture in four of
the twenty-five zone districts as a primary use. While City Council amended the Land Use and City Code in 2008 to
allow six chickens hens per lot (Ordinance No. 072, 2008), hundreds of citizens expressed the desire to practice urban
agriculture in more zones in the City, allow farmers markets in more areas, and allow for a wider range and number
of animals to be raised.
Based on City Plan and this feedback, staff proposes Land Use and City Code changes to implement City Plan. The
proposed Land Use Code changes include (1) the establishment of an urban agriculture licensing system that will allow
urban agriculture in all zone districts and (2) allowing farmers markets in more zone districts in the City. Proposed City
Code changes include (1) scaling the number of chickens allowed based on lot size, (2) allowing duck hens to be
raised, and (3) updating the beekeeping Ordinance to reflect current best practices.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Urban agriculture includes the production, distribution and consumption of locally produced food in an urban
environment. City Plan contains principles and policy statements in support of urban agriculture in three of the seven
key issue chapters. Partnerships internal and external to the City are working to implement these policy and principle
statements. For example, the Social Sustainability Department and the Gardens on Spring Creek are implementing
the Community Gardens Outreach Program (Offer 236.1) to promote access to community gardens in low-income
neighborhoods. The Planning Department is coordinating with numerous entities to ensure the Land Use Code and
City Codes are not acting as a barrier to implementing urban agriculture in the City. Throughout this year,
representatives from the private sector, public sector, and academic sector are coming together to identify how we
can implement City Plan strategically through the development of a Local Food Cluster, sponsored by the City’s
Economic Health Department. Each of these efforts is critical to implement the urban agriculture portions of City Plan.
What is before Council on July 2 is the effort to remove the Land Use and City Code barriers that would allow more
urban agriculture practices to take place throughout the City. Currently, the Land Use Code only allows urban
agriculture as a primary use in four of the City’s twenty-five zone districts (see Attachment 1: Map of Zone Districts),
yet these uses are currently being practiced in numerous other zone districts (see Attachment 2: Map of Urban
Agriculture Land Uses).
This project aligns with the City Plan Principle SW 3, which states, “The City will encourage and support local food
production to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic,
and social benefits.”
196 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 26
Based on research, outreach, and City Plan direction, this project has the following objectives:
Objective 1: Create an alternate development review process for urban agriculture land uses
The first project objective is to create an urban agriculture licensing system that allows urban agriculture to be
practiced throughout the City while ensuring neighborhood compatibility. If adopted, urban agriculture will be a
permitted use in all zone districts, subject to the licensing requirements set forth in Section 3.8.31 of the Land Use
Code. This licensing system creates a process for these land uses to be permitted without requiring the uses to go
through development review, which could prove prohibitive for achieving the City Plan principle of encouraging local
food production.
Based on feedback from Council, a specific application requirement will be to provide more detailed information on
the proposed manure management at the site (see Attachment 3 for all submittal requirements).
Objective 2: Allows farmers markets to be permitted in additional zone districts
Staff is proposing that farmers markets be allowed, in addition to the existing zone districts, in the LMN (Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood) and MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) zone districts. However, staff is
recommending that these uses be allowed only if located within a neighborhood center, park, or central feature or
gathering place to ensure that the traffic and other nuisance issues, as identified through the survey, are minimized.
Staff is also proposing that farmers markets be allowed in the HMN (High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) district,
which is limited in its geographic extent and would not likely pose the same concerns as in the other zone districts.
Objective 3: Scale the number of chickens allowed based on lot size, allow duck hens to be raised, and
update the beekeeping standards
Staff proposes the following structure for scaling chickens and ducks based on lot size:
• Less than 1/2 acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined (this would allow everyone in the City to
have up to eight chickens and/or ducks, similar to the City of Denver);
• Between 1/2 acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks; and
• More than 1 acre – six chickens and/or ducks per each additional ½ acre above a one-acre lot size, however,
when more than twelve chickens and/or ducks are requested, then all abutting property owners must be
notified prior to the issuance of a license to ensure compatibility with the neighbors.
One discussion during the May 14 Council Work Session was whether male ducks (drakes) should be allowed to be
raised within the City. While they do not pose the same level of noise concerns that roosters do, CSU experts and
Larimer County Department of Health staff presented concerns related to handling ducklings and to the noise concerns
that could still arise from allowing drakes. Though raising drakes with hens can be beneficial to the overall health of
the animals, staff is recommending that drakes not be allowed within the City at this time.
With regard to bees, numerous citizens requested removing the current requirement that hives be only Langstroth-style
hives, since it is an antiquated standard. Numerous other communities, including Larimer County, regulate beekeeping
based on movable comb hives. Staff is recommending that the hive requirement be updated to reflect more recent
best practices and require movable comb hives instead of Langstroth-style hives. In addition, citizens requested
additional time to dispose of or combine nucleus colonies. Instead of 30 days to dispose of or combine the colony, staff
is recommending allowing residents up to 60 days.
Note there are two separate licenses within this discussion:
1. Uban Agriculture License – this license will be managed by the Planning Department and will be for those land
uses, e.g., community gardens, market gardens, etc. where the garden or farm is the principal use on the
land. As discussed during the May 14, 2013 Work Session, the fee for the licenses will be waived for the first
year to allow existing gardens and farms to comply with the proposed regulations.
2. Poultry License (currently the chicken license) – this license will be managed by the Larimer County Humane
Society and will be for anyone wishing to obtain chicken hens and/or ducks hens in compliance with the
proposed City Code regulations. The fee for this license is $35.
197 of 465
July 2, 2013 -3- ITEM 26
Other Objectives and Next Steps:
Goats
In discussions with the community, the public outreach process, and during the Council Work Session on May 14,
significant support has been expressed for allowing miniature or pygmy goats to be raised within City limits. However,
in May, staff met with representatives from the Larimer County Department of Health, CSU Extension, CanDo (the
Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity), and Animal Control to obtain their feedback on the proposed
code changes.
During this discussion, staff learned that there is a disease associated with goats (Q fever) that has the potential to
affect residents beyond the individuals actually raising the goats. For example, Q fever is a wind-borne disease that
has the potential to affect neighbors who did not choose to be impacted, and can be threatening to sensitive
populations. Further, staff learned there is not a vaccine or reliable screening test for this disease.
In addition to Q fever, CSU experts also expressed concerns over the increasing number of cases of rabies in the
Front Range. As such, they are concerned that increasing the types of animals allowed within the City could increase
the number of rabies incidences, especially as there is a not a vaccine labeled for goats in the United States. Staff
should note that there is an “off label” vaccine that veterinarians can use in goats in general practice, but the lack of
an approved vaccine for goats creates a situation where prevention of transmitting the disease between goats and
humans cannot be guaranteed.
After the discussion, staff contacted other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver (allowed since
2011) and Seattle (allowed since 2007). Staff spoke with health experts from those areas as well as representatives
from the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban Agriculture Program, and numerous citizens. While all health
representatives acknowledged the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have occurred in
urban environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the City allow goats to be
raised.
If the City were to move forward with allowing goats, CSU experts have recommended that potential goat owners be
required to take a class in animal husbandry, care, and disease prevention and management. They also suggested
an inspection of the goat facilities prior to issuing a license should be required.
Due to the low number of citizens who have requested an interest in raising goats, to staff’s knowledge, the amount
of resources required to coordinate these classes and conduct the inspections, and the potential health risks to the
community, staff is not recommending that Council allow goats to be raised at this time.
Year-round Growing
During the public outreach process, citizens and farmers requested that other issues be addressed, including allowing
hoop houses (temporary greenhouses with frames made of conduit, PVC, or wood covered by polyurethane) within
the City without a building permit. Staff is currently coordinating the required code changes to allow hoop houses and
intends to bring these changes forward with the building code revisions this fall.
Water Quality
During the May 14 Council Work Session, staff was asked to assess if baseline sampling could be conducted to
ensure that water quality does not degrade as a result of allowing urban agriculture within the City. Through
discussions with Utilities, staff learned we would need to have a better understanding of the types of chemicals being
used at the site before we could conduct this sampling. Staff has added questions related to the use, timing, and
frequency of chemicals to the submittal checklist. If farmers or gardeners propose to use these chemicals, staff will
have a better understanding of what chemicals will need to be tested. As these tests can prove expensive, staff can
also provide these applicants with resources regarding alternative, organic treatments to minimize the use of these
chemicals.
Implementation Report
As discussed during the Work Session, staff will provide an implementation report to Council in the summer of 2013
with at least the following information:
198 of 465
July 2, 2013 -4- ITEM 26
• Number of urban agriculture and poultry licenses issued;
• Average staff time to process a license;
• Whether a particular size of operation causes greater impacts than smaller operations;
• If any applicants proposed to use synthetic chemicals and if a change in water quality was able to be sampled
for (and detected);
• If additional demand for goats has arisen and if the City should pursue allowing goats;
• If allowing drakes (male ducks) should be considered;
• Other key issues that have arisen during the licensing process; and
• Any suggested refinements to the urban agriculture regulations.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts to the City of Fort Collins from producing more food locally have not been quantified, However,
Boulder County conducted a study in 2012 and found that if 25% of foods were produced locally, the economic impacts
of this 25% shift would provide 1,899 additional jobs, over 80 million dollars in wages, and almost 12 million dollars
in additional business taxes would be generated in Boulder County alone (see
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/ua-be-local.pdf for the presentation by Hill Grimmett, former Executive
Director of Be Local Northern Colorado).
In addition to the broader economic impacts, being able to produce your own food or obtain more food locally supports
the City’s goal of a more resilient local economy (Principle EH1).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Allowing urban agriculture to proliferate within City limits presents the opportunity to have numerous environmental
impacts. These benefits include the potential for increased pollinator populations (biodiversity) and the psychological
benefits of local food production and being more self-sufficient. In addition, the production of more food locally can
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the vehicle miles traveled by the food we consume. For these
reasons, and many more, urban agriculture presents an opportunity for the City to provide for a local, resilient food
economy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (5-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code amendments related
to urban agriculture during its March 21, 2013 meeting (Attachment 4).
The Economic Advisory Commission unanimously (9-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code amendments
during its April 17, 2013 meeting (Attachment 5).
The Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the Land Use Code and City
Code amendments related to urban agriculture during its May 15, 2013 meeting (Attachments 6 and 7).
Staff also met with the Landmark Preservation Commission (Aug 2012), the Fort Collins Housing Authority
Development Committee (Aug 2012), the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (Sept 2012), and the Senior Advisory
Board (Sept 2012). All boards expressed general support for the changes.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On July 2, 2012, the urban agriculture public engagement plan was submitted to Council. Extensive public outreach,
including a project website, online survey (611 responses), public open house (95 attendees), several focus group
199 of 465
July 2, 2013 -5- ITEM 26
discussions with local farmers, Homeowners Associations, the Larimer County Humane Society, and discussions with
six City Boards and Commissions occurred since the project was initiated (in accordance with the Project’s Public
Engagement Plan). Staff also benchmarked existing City regulations with other similar communities, including Austin,
Portland, Seattle, Steamboat Springs, Denver, and Wheat Ridge. The attachments related to these outreach efforts
were provided to Council during its May 14, 2013 Work Session (available at the project website at
http://fcgov.com/urbanagriculture).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zone Districts where Urban Agriculture practices are currently allowed
2. Illustration of where Urban Agriculture practices are actually occurring
3. Submittal Requirements and Application Form for an Urban Agriculture License
4. Planning and Zoning Board – March 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes
5. Economic Advisory Commission – April 17, 2013 Meeting Minutes
6. Natural Resources Advisory Board – Memo from the Board Chair
7. Natural Resources Advisory Board – May 15, 2013 Meeting Minutes
8. City Council Work Session Summary, May 14, 2013
9. Powerpoint Presentation
10. Public Comment received since the May 14, 2013 Work Session (prior public comment provided to Council
at the Work Session)
200 of 465
ATTACHMENT 1
201 of 465
ATTACHMENT 2
202 of 465
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE
Application form
Written statement, including the following elements:
Describe the nature of the proposed urban agriculture land use, including the size of growing area;
How many employees or co-workers will be working at the site;
How will individuals access the garden or farm? Is there sufficient parking available for all users?
How will mechanized equipment be used on the site, how will the project comply with the City regarding
noise levels (see http://www.colocode.com/fcmunihtml.html for more information).
What chemicals or fertilizers will be used on the site; if using synthetic pesticides or herbicides, a list of
those chemicals shall be provided, along with information on timing and frequency of application;
Whether the site is in close proximity to a Natural Habitat or Feature (contact Lindsay Ex at 224-6143 or
lex@fcgov.com for more information);
How trash and composting will be managed on the site;
How manure will be stored and managed on the site (setbacks from water sources and ecologically
sensitive areas, how the manure will be composted and then used on the site, how the manure will be
kept dry, etc. – see manure management checklist);
How the site will be maintained;
The form of irrigation to be used on the site and how stormwater will be directed into a drainage system
or City right-of-way;
If produce is proposed to be distributed throughout the City, the applicant shall provide a list of the
locations where the food will be distributed, the timing of the distribution, and the anticipated number of
customers picking up the food at each location; and
Any additional elements that are proposed to mitigate impacts on adjacent property owners.
If a neighborhood meeting is required (urban agriculture sites over 0.5 acres or in a residential
zone): Three lists (3) of names and addresses of all owners of record of real property within at least 800’ of
the property lines for the parcel of land for which the project is proposed, exclusive of public right-of-way.
(Two (2) lists typed on mailing labels (30 names per sheet) and the other list on a reproducible copy of
those labels). All information provided on mailing labels must be submitted digitally in a Microsoft Excel
format.
Floodplain Use Permit. If any part of the urban agriculture land use is within a floodplain, a floodplain use
permit must be provided prior to the issuance of the license.
Site drawings. (11” x 17” or larger) Site drawings shall include the following elements:
Where mechanized equipment will be stored;
Proposed site parking (bicycles and vehicles);
If synthetic chemicals or fertilizers are proposed to be used, where they will be stored;
Location of trash and compost receptacles (must be setback a minimum 10’ from any abutting
residential land use);
General drainage patterns (how the site will runoff);
The location of the proposed sign;
Measurements from the edge of all activities to any adjacent residential land uses (minimum 5’
setback).
An electronic copy of all submitted materials (above) on a disk or other digital storage device (1 copy).
The following information is required to be submitted with all applications, unless waived by
staff. Any item waived must be dated and initialed by a planner with the City of Fort Collins
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department.
Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
ATTACHMENT 3
203 of 465
APPLICATION FORM:
URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
Location of Business: ______________________________________________________________________
Street Address Zip Code
Owner(s) Name: ______________________________ Sales Tax No. (if applicable): _________________
Business Name: ______________________________ Business Phone: __________________________
Email Address: _______________________________
City of Fort Collins Urban Agriculture Requirements:
Article 3.8.31 Urban Agriculture
(1) License required. Urban agriculture land uses shall be permitted only after the owner or applicant for which
the garden is proposed has obtained an urban garden license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be
the fee established in the Development Review Fee Schedule. If active operations have not been carried on for
a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months, the license shall be deemed to have been abandoned
regardless of intent to resume active operations. The Director may revoke any urban agriculture license issued
by the City if the holder of such license is in violation of any of the provisions contained in Subsection (2) below,
provided that the holder of the license shall be entitled to the administrative review of any such revocation
under the provisions contained in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code.
(2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use, provided that all of the following
conditions are met:
(a) Mechanized Equipment. All mechanized equipment used in the urban agriculture land use must be
in compliance with Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code regarding noise levels.
(b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-street vehicular and bicycle parking
areas adequate to accommodate parking demands created by the use.
(c) Chemicals and Fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied only in accordance with
state and federal regulations. All chemicals shall be stored in an enclosed, locked structure when the
site is unattended. No synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied within a Natural Habitat Buffer
Zone.
(d) Trash/compost. Trash and compost receptacles shall be screened from adjacent properties by
utilizing landscaping, fencing or storage within structures and all trash shall be removed from the site
weekly. Compost piles and containers shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from any property line
when urban agriculture abuts a residential land use.
(e) Maintenance. An urban agriculture land use shall be maintained in an orderly manner, including
necessary watering, pruning, pest control and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and shall be
maintained in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code.
(f) Water conservation and conveyance. To the extent reasonably feasible, the use of sprinkler
irrigation between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be minimized. Drip irrigation or watering
by hand may be done at any time. The site must be designed and maintained so that any water runoff is
conveyed off-site into a city right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting downstream
property.
(g) Identification/contact information. A clearly visible sign shall be posted near the public right-of-way
adjacent to an urban agriculture land use that includes the name, contact information of the garden
manager or coordinator, and if synthetic pesticide or herbicide is used, the sign shall also include the
name of the chemical and the frequency of application. The contact information for the garden manager
or coordinator shall be kept on file with the City. All urban agriculture signs must comport with Section
3.8.7 of this Land Use Code.
Revised June 17, 2013 2 Urban Agriculture License Submittal Requirements
ATTACHMENT 3
204 of 465
APPLICATION FORM:
URBAN AGRICULTURE LICENSE
(h) If produce from an urban agriculture land use is proposed to be distributed throughout the City, the
applicant must provide a list of proposed Food Membership Distribution Sites in the application.
(i) Floodplains. If urban agriculture is proposed within a floodplain, then a Floodplain Use Permit is
required in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
(j) Additional Impact Mitigation. Measures such as landscaping, fencing, or setbacks to mitigate
potential visual, noise, or odor impacts on adjoining property may be required by the Director. There
shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the
property line of the parcel where the urban agriculture land use is conducted. Where an urban
agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a minimum setback of five (5) feet between
the operation and the property line.
(3) Notice. At the time of an initial application, mailed notice, posted notice, and a neighborhood meeting are
required if an urban agriculture land use is proposed within a residential zone (N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-
M-N, M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L) or if the urban garden exceeds 0.5 acres in size. Such notice and
neighborhood meeting shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Land Use Code.
Additional notice and a neighborhood meeting may be required by the Director at the time of license
reissuance.
I have read and do understand the urban agriculture license requirements, Article 3.8.31, Land Use Code of the
City of Fort Collins. I agree to comply with the standards of this ordinance when operating my farm or garden. I
understand it is my responsibility to comply with subdivision protective covenants which relate to urban
agriculture.
Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________________
Please submit this application and the associated requirements outlined in the submittal checklist to
the City of Fort Collins Planning Services Department. Contact Lindsay Ex at 970.224.6143 to schedule
a review of the proposed license.
Special Conditions (as required by City):
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
City Approval: __________________________
Date: _________________________
Revised June 17, 2013 3 Urban Agriculture License Submittal Requirements
ATTACHMENT 3
205 of 465
URBAN AGRICULTURE:
MANURE MANAGEMENT CHECKLIST
How will manure be used on site? (check all that apply)
Fertilizer
Composting
Excess stored until disposal
Other
How will manure be supplied? (check all the apply)
Produced on site
Delivered to site
Combination
Other
Manure Produced Onsite
Please record the types of animal(s) and their number(s):
N/A
Animal Number
Pets (e.g. dogs/cats) _______
Chickens _______
Ducks _______
Other _______
____ I understand any manure delivered to the site, or excess manure produced on site and not for use in
composting must be dried, tilled into the ground within 48 hours, or stored in a sealed, leak and insect-proof
container.
____ I understand stored manure must be screened from view of the street and may be placed out for
disposal no earlier than 12 hours before scheduled pickup and cannot remain for more than 12 hours after
pickup.
____ Storage of manure shall comply with all provisions of the Fort Collins municipal code, including Section
20-1, Air Pollution Nuisances.
The following information is required to be submitted with all applications, unless waived by
staff. Any item waived must be dated and initialed by a planner with the City of Fort Collins
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department.
Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
ATTACHMENT 3
206 of 465
207 of 465
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said urban agriculture is the food production and
distribution in the urban environment and includes community gardens, farms, farmers markets,
and animals. This project addresses one (policy barriers) of many local issues - Land Use and
Municipal Code Regulations
Land Use Code (LUC) only allows urban agriculture practices in four of the twenty-five zone
districts as a principal use: Agricultural activities – River Conservation and Public Open Lands
and Farm animals – River Conservation, Residential Foothills, and Urban Estate. The project
goal is to ensure the LUC supports the community’s desires in relation to urban agriculture
practices both when and where appropriate. Ex described the public outreach process (focus
groups, boards and commissions, Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee, on-line survey (611
responses) and public open house (95 attendees). It is by those means they learned that the
community supports (while addressing compatibility issues such as traffic, noise, odor, and
parking):
Allowing urban gardens in more zones
Allowing farmers markets in more locations in the City
Allowing ducks, goats, and scale poultry based on lot size.
Staff recommends creating a licensing system that allows urban agriculture in all zone districts.
After conferring with the board at work session they suggest a one year grace period which
would allow existing producers to be licensed at no additional cost. It encourages early
dialogue and a commitment to best practices. It allows for tracking of licenses. A development
review process would not be required.
Ex said staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation
for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture, with the following
condition:
• The City Manager allows a twelve month grace period for all existing urban agriculture
land uses to be permitted allowing existing urban agricultural land uses to be permitted
at no cost.
Ex also recommends draft ordinance reference LUC Section 3.8.31(C) (2) (b) Parking be
revised to delete “all”. It would read “Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-
street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate all parking demands
created by the use.”
Public Input
Dennis Stenson, 2820 W. Elizabeth, said he and his wife started Happy Heart Farm 30 years
ago. He said they started Colorado’s first CSA (Community Supporting Agriculture) project.
There are now 35 CSA and community gardens in Fort Collins so it indicates how the
community has supported agriculture over the past 30 years. He said agriculture (with Colorado
State University) is definitely a part of our heritage. He said moving forward we’re looking at a
city government that would like to be included in that ‘hero’ story in Northern Colorado of going
back to the future and getting people engaged in the process of growing and distributing food in
a local area. He asked that the existing projects be given the ‘grandfathering’ they need to keep
doing the good job they’ve been doing.
ATTACHMENT 4
208 of 465
Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, said she supports the proposal and wanted to say staff has
done a fantastic job. She said when reading through the proposed ordinance she found in
Section C.2 (b) that it said accommodate all parking. She said she doesn’t think we’ve ever
required anything else to accommodate all parking and that would be unfair. She’s happy to see
staff supports the idea of eliminating ‘all’ and asked the board to consider making that change.
Elizabeth Joyce, 711 Laporte Avenue, said she’s generally supportive of the agriculture
proposal as it pertains to the gardens and farmers market but she does have some concerns
about expanding the livestock allowed in the city. She thinks there are too many conflicting
issues about competing neighbor interests – sanitation, health, and animal welfare issues. She
has concerns related to code enforcement; she wonders in some cases if it’ll have lower priority
with demands/available resources. She supports scaling the number of chickens if
consideration is given to smaller lots so there is minimal impact on the neighborhood. She
asked how the increased numbers of goats that come from pregnancy are handled and if the
anti-slaughter provision for chickens applies to goats.
Chuck Cotherman, 516 Villanova Ct, said he runs the Mulberry Community Gardens. He said
beyond food production they are educationally focused. He hopes the board adopts staff’s
recommendation – get back to where our food comes from.
Michael Baute, 2825 S. Taft Hill Road, said together with Megan Williams they manage Spring
Kite Farm. Luckily they are in one of the 3 zones that allow them. He supports the
grandfathering of existing operations as well as the removal of “all” as relates to parking. He
said land values are incredibly high and there are few who want to do the work. There needs to
be a reevaluation of the disparity between access to land and water (e.g. competition for water
for sod). He’d like to support what’s happening here and congratulate everyone for being a part
of it.
Trevor Shores, 2201 Creekwood Drive, is an apprentice at Happy Heart Farms. As a
prospective farmer, he does agree with many of the proposals. He’d encourage the city to try
and find a way to make it more attractive to people who want to farm. If he has to buy a permit
on top of the costs of seed, tractor, land, and water; capital he might have will run out. He
believes Fort Collins wants to be more food secure and this is a very nice first step.
End of Public Input
Staff Response
Staff member Lindsay Ex said most of the regulations are around synthetic chemicals in
fertilizer. No urban agriculture land user would be able to use those types of synthetic
chemicals in a natural habitat buffer zone. Ex said there are provisions in the Municipal Code
ordinance that is not yet available for public review. She can speak to it in generalities. She
said the regulations allow the kids to remain with the does for 12 weeks after they’re born so
they can be nursed. At that point they would need to be sold or given away. Ex said the
prohibition of slaughter of goats is the same as for the chickens.
Bill Porter of Larimer Humane Society said they support the increase of the number of chickens
based on the size of the land. He said since the adoptions of the ‘chicken ordinance’ there have
ATTACHMENT 4
209 of 465
been 76 complaints and 1 citation. He said it’s pretty much been a non-issue for the Humane
Society. He said the chickens must be in an enclosure and allowed outside during daylight
hours. At night they must be placed inside the enclosure to protect them from predators. The
coop is defined as an indoor/outdoor coop 15 feet from the adjacent property line.
Member Hart asked about setbacks for goats. Ex said it’s also 15 feet – similar to Denver and
Steamboat Springs and that it seems to be working for them.
Member Heinz asked about the urban agriculture license. Ex said the licenses are for the farms
or the gardens that are the principle uses on a lot. It will be coordinated by Planning Services.
Animal licenses are coordinated by Animal Control. Ex said concerns they heard through public
outreach were related to traffic and odor (compost piles) – she outlined proposed provisions as
relates to farms or gardens that are principal use for the Land Use Code and other provisions
related to the Municipal Code (which are the purview of City Council).
Member Campana asked if there is a requirement for a manure or compost management plan.
Ex said with licensing they would provide an overall plan on how they would handle that. She
said they did not hear concerns related to manure so they did not include a specific standard for
that. If it’s going to be in an area with higher density, they could discuss that issue. He’d
recommend the distribution of information related a manure management to raise awareness at
the Development Review Center front counter.
Member Heinz asked what was meant by ‘grandfathering’ as noted in public comment.
Community member Stenson said his concerns related to the already established farms and
how Planning Services (whose orientation may primarily have been other types of development)
would address an application for an existing or a new farm. He’s hoping existing operations
would be granted a ‘pass’. Member Hart asked if Mr. Stenson was aware of Colorado’s Right to
Farm provision. He was not. Staff member Ex said the licensing process is fairly benign. It’s
more about having the dialogue about the regulations that apply to those types of uses. She
thinks having the 12 month grace period with no cost will also help that.
Member Carpenter said many of the Home Owners Associations have regulations against
animals and she’s assuming this is not going to change any of that. Ex said correct.
Member Campana said he likes the idea of no cost to get the farms licensed. He said he
assumes the farms that exist today within the city are in zone districts that allow them. He
thinks what’s proposed will clean things up -- requiring farms to come in for licenses and to have
the dialogue with staff especially if there are any non-conforming uses.
Member Heinz said she likes the implementation of transparency of growing practices.
Member Heinz made a motion for the Planning and Zoning board to recommend to City
Council the adoption of Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code –
Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture including the condition of the 12 month grace
period and the change related to deleting ‘all’ as relates to parking. Member Campana
seconded the motion.
Member Campana said great work. Member Heinz agreed.
ATTACHMENT 4
210 of 465
Member Smith said he’d like to see us continue this trend. He thinks this is a very important
element of our community from an economic, social and ecological standpoint.
The motion passed 6:0
ATTACHMENT 4
211 of 465
written data and cited sources regarding Mr. Sutherland’s claims in a more formal written presentation
moving forward.
Mike Pruznick commented on job/skills mismatch and believes it is a fallacy based on research he has
done. In addition, he believes the City should diversify its financial support and not rely so heavily on
sales tax revenue. He also stated that local retailers are not meeting the needs of the citizens of Fort
Collins, but internet retailers are. Retail is changing and it doesn’t need to be revitalized, it needs to be
revamped.
Agenda Item 4: Follow-up Discussion
Josh Birks provided an update regarding the Woodward Assistance Package. He stated that first and
second reading have passed Council, and the Package will now be reviewed by Woodward’s Board. He
is hopeful the project will move forward in May.
Agenda Item 5: Future Agenda Items and Sales Tax Update
Jessica Ping-Small presented a Sales Tax Update. Sales and Use Tax are up 4.2% for the year and we
have been trending in about the 4% range.
Josh Birks, Sam Solt, and Blue Hovatter met prior to the meeting to discuss a new EAC Agenda format
with the goal of making our monthly meetings more efficient. The new format would include a logistics
section (30 minutes), New Projects/Policy Review (45 minutes) and on-going initiatives (75 minutes). It
was also stated that moving forward, the EAC would be more selective in reviewing items brought forth
by other departments and more proactive about the implementation of the Economic Health Strategic Plan
and other topical areas of focus. The EAC agreed, and the new agenda format will be put in place for
next month.
After additional discussion regarding the Urban Renewal Authority, next month’s agenda will include a
URA educational training including a 3rd party URA expert and additional information provided by the
City specific to our program. In May, the agenda will include a panel discussion with all interests
represented to discuss the use of URA’s and their positive and negative benefits.
Agenda Item 6: EAC Process Logistics
No updates provided at this time.
Agenda Item 7: Urban Ag
Lindsay Ex presented an overview regarding Urban Agriculture in Fort Collins. Information included a
description of urban agriculture, the project goal, public outreach, proposed regulations, and next steps in
the process. Current trends show that many urban agricultural uses are already occurring outside of their
zone districts. The proposed changes include creating a licensing system that allows for urban agriculture
in all zone districts including a change in land use codes to support farming activities and a change in City
animal codes to allow ducks and goats. Dan Lenskold and Jim Clark commented that they were
concerned about allowing more livestock in an urban environment and the possibility for disease.
Lindsay commented that she would add those concerns to do further research. After thorough
consideration and discussion, the EAC developed the following recommendation to the Fort Collins City
Council.
Mike Kulisheck motioned, and Dan Lenskold seconded the following motion:
Due to the economic benefit of sourcing food locally, the Economic Advisory Commission supports the
Land Use Code changes as proposed on April 17, 2013. We find the changes to be economically
sustainable appropriately supporting a local marketplace in a local economy.
Motion passed 9-0
Economic Advisory Commission
April 17, 2013
ATTACHMENT 5
212 of 465
213 of 465
214 of 465
Increase locations of farmers markets to include low, medium and high density mixed
use neighborhoods.
Allow ducks, and poultry based on lot size.
Allow two goats per household.
Update beekeeping regulations.
o Have early dialogue
o Commitment to best practices
o Allows tracking of licenses
o Allow a grace period to be license free
o Development Review would not be required
• Support from City Boards and Commissions so far:
o Formal endorsements from Planning and Zoning and Economic Advisory Boards
o General support from presentations in 2012:
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Board
Landmark Preservation Board
Senior Advisory Board
Discussion
• Paul Nastu: What about apartment buildings? (Everyone in a multi-family building has to agree if
any of the units participate in urban agriculture.)
• Harry Edwards: Don’t HOA rules take precedent over these rules? (Yes. We can give information
to them, but staff is not recommending to override HOA’s rules.
• Phil Friedman: If licensing doesn’t apply to household gardens, what size garden does licensing
affect? (This is a grey area. The key issue is that the City does not allow urban agriculture as a
principal use on the land in 21 of our 25 zone districts. A license is required when a garden or farm
becomes a principal use on the land. The City is more interested in compliance than handing out
licenses. We are trying to make a process that is easy to comply with and meet best practices.)
• Lindsay Ex: Regarding keeping animals, no slaughtering is allowed in the City.
• Lindsay Ex: The local food cluster will address how to get food to market for the farmers.
• Harry Edwards: Are there any special needs on solid waste management for animals. (The City’s
nuisance code would apply here. You could also use the manure for composting.)
• Joe Halseth suggested Joe Piesman add to his letter of recommendation to Council on this issue that
hoop houses receive exemption from the City’s Building Code update.
Vote on representative to Bike Advisory Committee (BAC).
• Joe Halseth attended the last Bicycle Advisory Committee.. He agreed to be the NRAB’s
representative to the BAC.
Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded the following motion:
The NRAB supports permissive measures which encourage the growth of urban agriculture as
one of several means of contributing to the health and vitality of the local economy, and the
thoughtful reduction of Land Use Code provisions which present ready access to community
gardens, community-supported agriculture and urban farming. The NRAB recommends the
adoption of the staff-supported amendments to the Land Use Code and The City Code to
increase the opportunities for urban agriculture within the City.
Vote passed unanimously 7 – 0 - 0
ATTACHMENT 7
215 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
216 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
217 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
218 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
219 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
220 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
221 of 465
ATTACHMENT 8
222 of 465
1
1
Urban Agriculture
City Council Hearing
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director
Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner
July 2, 2013
2
Council Consideration
• First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 amending
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code to by the
Addition of Provisions Pertaining to Urban
Agriculture
-and-
• First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 amending
Chapter 4, Article II & III, of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins related to the Care and Keeping of
Animals
ATTACHMENT 9
223 of 465
2
3
What is Urban Agriculture?
Food production and
distribution in the urban
environment
Includes:
• Community Gardens
• Farms
• Farmers markets
•Animals
Above: Gardens on Spring Creek
Right: Produce from Grant
Family Farms
4
City Plan Principles and Policies
• Principle SW 3:
– …encourage and support local food production…
• Policy SW 3.1:
– Encourage Community Gardens and Markets
• Principle LIV 42.2:
– Encourage agricultural uses
• Principle ENV 4.5:
– Support Community Horticulture
224 of 465
3
5
Urban
Agriculture
in the City
Zone Districts
Allowing Urban
Agriculture
- Public Open
Lands
-River
Conservation
- Urban Estate
- Residential
Foothills
6
Existing Urban
Agricultural
Land Uses
Urban
Agriculture
in the City
225 of 465
4
7
Project Goal
Ensure City
regulations support
the community’s
desires in relation to
urban agriculture
practices both when
and where
appropriate. Fossil Creek Community Gardens
(Photo: Courtney Levingston)
8
Objective 1:
Create a licensing system
• Allows urban agriculture in all zone districts
• Opportunity for early dialogue and commitment to
best practices
• Submittal checklist addresses manure
management concerns
• Grace period allows existing producers to be
licensed at no additional cost
226 of 465
5
9
When is a license required?
Private garden:
Allowed in all zone districts,
can grow and sell produce
grown as an accessory use
Urban Agriculture:
When a garden or farm is a
principal use on the land, then
a license is required.
Garden on Sunset Drive (Photo: Ginny Sawyer) Happy Heart Farms (Photo: Happy Heart Farms)
10
Objective 2: Farmers Markets
• Currently allowed in seven
zone districts
• Proposed to be included in:
– LMN - Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhoods,
– MMN - Medium Density
Mixed Use Neighborhood,
– HMN - High Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood.
(Photo: Alison O’Connor)
227 of 465
6
11
Objective 3: Animals
Allow ducks, scale poultry based
on lot size:
– <0.5 acre - up to 8 chickens or
ducks, combined;
– 0.5 – 1 acre - up to 12
chickens or ducks;
–>1 acre – 6 additional
chickens or ducks per each
additional ½ acre; notification
required.
(Photo: Sustainable Living
Association)
12
Animals
• Update
beekeeping
regulations
– Allow for movable
comb hives
– Allow increased
time days to
dispose of or
combine nucleus
colonies.
Movable Comb Beehive.
228 of 465
7
13
Changes since the Work Session
• Ducks – only allowing hens
• Goats – no longer recommending
– Concerns raised from the Larimer County
Department of Health and Colorado State
University
• Risks of keeping goats (because of potential
diseases, e.g., Q fever and rabies) outweigh
the benefits
• Recommend waiting until vaccines or more
reliable screening methods are available
14
Next Steps
• Community-Wide
– Local Food Cluster
– Community Gardens
• Policy and
Regulations
– Year-round growing
– Water Quality
– Implementation
Report
229 of 465
8
15
City Boards and Commissions
Formal Endorsements for Code Changes:
– Planning and Zoning Board (March 21)
– Economic Advisory Commission (April 17)
– Natural Resources Advisory Board (May 15)
General Support (presentations in 2012):
– Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
– Landmark Preservation Commission
– Senior Advisory Board
16
Thank you!
• Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee
• Citizens and individuals who have helped to shape this effort
• City Boards and Commissions
• City Council
• City of Fort Collins and CanDo Staff Team
• Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity (CanDo)
• Colorado State University
• Farmers and producers who have contributed their time
• Fort Collins Housing Authority
• Gardens on Spring Creek
• Larimer County Humane Society and
Department of Health
230 of 465
9
17
Council Consideration
• First Reading of Ordinance No. 096, 2013 amending
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code to by the
Addition of Provisions Pertaining to Urban
Agriculture
-and-
• First Reading of Ordinance No. 097, 2013 amending
Chapter 4, Article II & III, of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins related to the Care and Keeping of
Animals
231 of 465
From: chrish@trebuchetgroup.com on behalf of Chris Hutchinson
To: City Leaders
Cc: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Request to support a change around urban animal husbandry
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:26:39 PM
First, I want to thank you all for the fine work you do serving us as citizens of this great city.
Second, I'd like to ask that you consider allowing the code change to allow raising of goats in
the city as has been researched by staff, even as staff is not recommending to go forward with
this change.
My understanding is that the one significant reason for the lack of recommendation is that Larimer
County Department of Health is concerned about Q fever. I also understand that staff contacted health
experts from other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver (allowed since 2011)
and Seattle (allowed since 2007), as well as the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban Agriculture
Program, and numerous citizens. According to Lindsay Ex, a staffer on this project, "While all health
representatives acknowledged the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have
occurred in urban environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the
City allow goats to be raised."
I also understand that only a small number of citizens, myself included, have expressed interest in
raising dwarf goats in pairs on their property. I know that some people already raise goats without
problems or oversight, yet do so very quietly since they are out of compliance with code. I believe one
of the reasons for only hearing from a few people is that people who are doing it do not want to raise
attention, and other people don't yet see it as a possibility.
For me, I have 1/4 acre with a garden and yard that supplies much of my family's food during the
growing season, and would like to include small goats to help my children be able to participate in and
truly understand the full cycle of nature. We had a dog at one point who, while friendly, liked to escape
through our front door, bark, and disturb our neighbors. My experience with goats is that the impact to
our neighborhood would be far less than our dog or other dogs in the neighborhood, with the beneficial
side effects of nutrition and education for my children
With all the feather-ruffling about chickens before the code was changed, I have
heard no problems with errant chickens or property owners since. In my opinion, we
live in a highly-educated city where people tend to make good decisions and deal
with consequences effectively.
With all this in mind, I ask you to override staff's recommendation and adopt the
carefully researched language allowing the responsible raising of goats into City
code.
Thank you,
Chris Hutchinson
1320 Whedbee St
970 219 2993
PS The cost of milk-producing goats is $300-$500 each, so this is not an inexpensive
undertaking when you also factor in food and veterinary care.
PPS Here is a great site with simple information about temperament and care of
dwarf nigerian goats (one of the options in the draft
ATTACHMENT 10
232 of 465
language) http://www.ndga.org/about.html
ATTACHMENT 10
233 of 465
From: Lindsay Ex
To: "andrewthesteiner@yahoo.com"
Cc: Laurie Kadrich
Subject: Goats in City Limits - response
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:15:22 AM
Attachments: q_fever.pdf
Good morning Andrew,
My name is Lindsay Ex and I am the project lead on developing the urban agriculture regulations
for the City.
I’m going to try and address your request for articles about Q Fever, but as you have found there
are limited data surrounding Q fever in an urban environment, as the documented incidences have
occurred in larger farms. However, for general information about the disease, I’m attaching an
article by the Center for Food Security and Public Health (at Iowa State University) that was
provided to me.
King County (Seattle) has an excellent website on all issues related to private goat ownership, see
here. Make sure to click on the link that further outlines diseases from goats and livestock. The
outbreak that was associated with farms in Washington and Montana is also linked to from their
website, but the direct link is here.
I hope this information begins to answer your request – if you would like more information, would
you please let me know?
Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Senior Environmental Ex, LEED G.A. Planner
CDNS | City of Fort Collins
lex@fcgov.com
970.224.6143
From: Andrew Steiner [mailto:andrewthesteiner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:44 PM
To: City Leaders
Subject: Goats in City Limits
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the upcoming vote which would allow citizens of Fort Collins to possess
goats within city limits. From what I have read, the only potential drawback is one that does not
generally affect urban goats called Q Disease. It is a disease that affects goats in confined spaces,
like within farms created for mass production and is not a real threat to small populations like what
ATTACHMENT 10
234 of 465
is being proposed in our city. I know that there's a lot of information out there, and I was hoping
you all could direct me to more legitimate articles about the concerns of Q Disease. Would any of
you be able to provide me with that information?
It seems to me that conservatives would support such a notion on the basis of both self-reliance
and individual freedom and green liberals would support such a notion on the basis of community
sustainability and individual freedom. I'm just curious as to what the real drawbacks are, if any.
Since many cities have already allowed urban goats (Seattle, Portland, Denver, Austin) I ask what
would stop our city from doing the same? I believe our strength is in our independence and that
we ought to do everything we can to promote that mentality. The more we provide for ourselves,
the less we need to rely on outside forces that may not have our best interest at heart.
Thanks for your time and thoughts,
Andrew Steiner
ATTACHMENT 10
235 of 465
From: Lindsay Ex
To: "bfedak13@gmail.com"
Subject: RE: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:11:20 PM
Hi Becky,
Thank you so much for your note – I will include it in the packet that goes onto City Council so your
voice can be heard.
It should be noted that the key reason we are not recommending goats is not because of the lack
of interest but because of the concerns raised by the Larimer County Department of Health, as
outlined below.
But, to answer your question, we have not conducted a formal survey of individuals in the City who
wish to raise goats. However, the email list for this topic includes almost 400 people, and you are
the first person I’ve heard back from who is expressing the desire to raise goats above the six that I
am already aware of. This is not to suggest that there aren’t more people out there who also want
to raise goats, but I’m just not certain there is a groundswell of interest in raising goats in the same
number that want to raise chickens. If you feel that I’m wrong, do let me know. I hope we’ve
shown in this process that we are very open to feedback from the community.
Thanks again for your feedback – I really appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Lindsay
From: Becky Fedak [mailto:bfedak13@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013
Hello Lindsay,
I just wanted to take the time to thank you for providing all of the helpful and informative
emails and keeping those of us that are interested in the urban agriculture discussion in Fort
Collins apprised of the developments and decisions by staff. It is exciting to see the strides
the community is making in this space!
The one decision I am slightly disappointed about is not recommending the allowance of
goats to council. You noted in your email that only half a dozen people have expressed
interest in raising goats, was there a survey or some other means used to gather this
information? I would expect this number to be higher, for example our household has
entertained the idea but have not shared this information directly with City staff so would not
be included in your counts. I unfortunately will be out of town for the July 2nd council
session to express this opinion but would encourage the City to reconsider their decision and
recommendation to council as it seems more data needs to be gathered on the interest of
residents in this practice to make an informed decision and accurate recommendation to
council.
ATTACHMENT 10
236 of 465
Best,
Becky Fedak
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning everyone,
As you may know, the urban agriculture code changes are heading to City Council on July 2,
2013. Council meetings begin at 6:00 pm and the agenda (which will indicate what time this
item goes on) will be available online no later than June 28th
at this website:
http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php.
Updates Since the May 14, 2013 Council Work Session
In general, the proposed code changes to allow urban agriculture in all zone districts and
allow farmers markets in a few more zone districts have not changed. We did remove the
reference to “all” in the parking standards outlined in the urban agriculture license
requirements.
There are a couple of areas where changes have been made, including the following:
Goats – As I indicated in my last email to the group (on May 17), staff was reconsidering the
recommendation to allow goats within City limits due to the concerns raised by the Larimer
County Department of Public Health and experts with Colorado State University. After the
discussion, staff contacted other urban, municipal governments that allow goats, e.g., Denver
(allowed since 2011) and Seattle (allowed since 2007). Staff spoke with health experts from
those areas as well as representatives from the Center for Disease Control, CSU’s Urban
Agriculture Program, and numerous citizens. While all health representatives acknowledged
the risks of Q fever, they acknowledged that no Q fever outbreaks have occurred in urban
environments and the risk is low that an outbreak would occur in the City, should the City
allow goats to be raised.
We also asked the experts with CSU what standards should be put in place if the City were
to move forward with allowing goats. These experts recommended that, at a minimum,
potential goat owners should be required to take a class in animal husbandry, care, and
disease prevention and management. They also suggested an inspection of the goat facilities
prior to issuing a license should be required.
Knowing the concerns from the Larimer County Department of Health, who have significant
expertise in this area, the relatively low number of citizens who have expressed an interest in
raising goats (I have heard from only about a ½ dozen folks), the amount of resources
required to coordinate these classes and conduct the inspections, and the potential health risks
to the community, staff is not recommending that Council allow goats to be raised at this
time.
Ducks – Also in my last email update, I mentioned the concerns that were raised around
allowing drakes (male ducks). While they do not pose the same level of noise concerns that
ATTACHMENT 10
237 of 465
roosters do, CSU experts and Larimer County Department of Health staff presented concerns
related to handling ducklings and to the noise concerns that could still arise from allowing
drakes. Though raising drakes with hens can be beneficial to the overall health of the
animals, staff is recommending that drakes not be allowed within the City at this time.
Chickens and Ducks – Based on the feedback from CSU experts during the discussion about
goats, staff is now proposing a pre-inspection of the structures for raising poultry to ensure
they meet the standards outlined in City Code, e.g., setback 15’ from abutting property lines
unless there is written approval from surrounding neighbors, that the structure be predator-
resistant, etc. This pre-inspection will help ensure that licensees have developed a structure
that complies with the code and will minimize any impacts on the neighbors.
Thanks to all of you for your active involvement in this discussion. Your feedback and
guidance throughout this process has been incredibly appreciated.
As always, I encourage each of you to attend the City Council during their July 2nd
Hearing
to express your thoughts on these proposed code changes to Council. I look forward to seeing
you on July 2nd
, and if you cannot attend the meeting, please feel free to send any written
comments my way (prior to the hearing) and I will make sure those get into Council’s packet.
Thank you,
Lindsay
P.S. If you’d like to be removed from this mailing list, please just let me know.
Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A.
Senior Environmental Planner
CDNS | City of Fort Collins
lex@fcgov.com
970.224.6143
--
Rebecca Fedak, P.E.
www.linkedin.com/in/beckyfedak
www.runningwaterinternational.org
ATTACHMENT 10
238 of 465
From: Cheryl Distaso
To: City Leaders
Cc: Bruce Hendee; Lindsay Ex
Subject: Urban Agriculture
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:22:52 PM
Dear City Leaders-
Hope you are enjoying these beautiful summer days.
I'm writing you this evening about the Urban Agriculture Issue that will
be before you on Tuesday, July 2nd. I've had the pleasure of working
with Lindsay Ex regarding this issue. It's actually the first time I've
worked with Ms. Ex, and I've found her to be extremely transparent and
responsive; her commitment to this community shines through in the work
that she does.
I encourage you to support the Land Use Code and Municipal Code changes
necessary to move forward with the Urban Agriculture proposal.
Additionally, I strongly urge you to allow two pygmy or dwarf goats for
those community members who choose to have goats for milk production.
It is my understand that staff is not recommending that goats be
included in the Urban Agriculture proposal because of concerns about Q
virus. I believe that these concerns are unfounded, as we can look at
other cities, such as Denver, Lake Wood, Portland and Seattle which have
been allowing goats for years without any negative consequences.
Having goats to produce milk is a matter of sustainability, as is the
entire Urban Agriculture proposal. Our City decision makers are not only
data driven but inherently concerned with the three areas of
sustainability: environment, equity, and economy. The Urban Agriculture
proposal that is before you, with the addition of two pygmy or dwarf
goats, would give the city a great opportunity to walk the talk of
sustainability.
Thanks much,
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Distaso
Coordinator, FCCAN
P.O. Box 400
Fort Collins, CO 80522
(970) 419-8944www.fccan.org info@fccan.org
ATTACHMENT 10
239 of 465
From: Lindsay Ex
To: "Kate Peterkin"
Subject: RE: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:43:32 PM
Hi Kate,
Thank you for writing about the urban agriculture efforts we are conducting.
In response to your question, the City does not currently override HOAs on chickens and staff is not proposing to
override HOAs. In other words, HOAs do have the discretion to not allow chickens.
I hope that helps - will you let me know if I can provide any further clarification?
Sincerely,
Lindsay
-----Original Message-----
From: Kate Peterkin [mailto:katepete@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM
To: Lindsay Ex
Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture - Update and Council Hearing on July 2, 2013
Hello Lindsay,
Thank you for keeping me in the loop regarding proposals for Urban Agriculture. Can you tell me whether HOAs
will have the discretion to override the City's choice to allow chickens, etc in "all zones"? I believe this issue needs
to be addressed at this point to avoid unnecessary conflict between HOA residents and their HOA regulatory
boards. Clear guidance from the City will be needed.
Thank you.
Kate Peterkin, Resident of Warren Shores Community Association
730 Sandpiper Point, Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 10
240 of 465
1
ORDINANCE NO. 096, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO URBAN AGRICULTURE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City Council adopted the City Plan ASafety and Wellness
Vision,@ which contains numerous policies supporting local food production, including Principle
SW3, which directs staff to encourage and support local food production to improve the
availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and
social benefits; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2013 Work Program,
which calls for City staff to update the Land Use Code to reflect urban agriculture land uses
currently practiced and desired to be practiced in the City, City staff has proposed certain Land
Use Code changes to allow for these practices while also ensuring that neighborhood
compatibility is achieved; and
WHEREAS, City staff has vetted these proposed changes through focus groups with
local farmers, interested citizens, and homeowners association representatives, and through a
project website, an online survey and a public open house; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed
Land Use Code changes regarding urban agriculture and have recommended to the City Council
that they be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
. . .
Section 1. That Division 3.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 3.8.31 which reads in its entirety as follows:
241 of 465
2
3.8.31 Urban Agriculture
(A) Applicability. These standards apply to all urban agriculture land uses, except
those urban agriculture land uses that are approved as a part of a site-specific
development plan.
(B) Purpose. The intent of these urban agriculture supplementary regulations is to
allow for a range of urban agricultural activities at a level and intensity that is
compatible with the City’s neighborhoods.
(C) Standards.
(1) License required. Urban agriculture land uses shall be permitted only after
the owner or applicant for the proposed use has obtained an urban
agriculture license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be the
fee established in the Development Review Fee Schedule. If active
operations have not been carried on for a period of twenty-four (24)
consecutive months, the license shall be deemed to have been abandoned
regardless of intent to resume active operations. The Director may revoke
any urban agriculture license issued by the City if the holder of such
license is in violation of any of the provisions contained in Subsection (2)
below, provided that the holder of the license shall be entitled to the
administrative review of any such revocation under the provisions
contained in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code.
(2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use,
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Mechanized Equipment. All mechanized equipment used in the
urban agriculture land use must be in compliance with Chapter 20,
Article II of the City Code regarding noise levels.
(b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-
street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to
accommodate parking demands created by the use.
(c) Chemicals and Fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides or herbicides may
be applied only in accordance with state and federal regulations.
All chemicals shall be stored in an enclosed, locked structure when
the site is unattended. No synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be
applied within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.
(d) Trash/compost. Trash and compost receptacles shall be screened
from adjacent properties by utilizing landscaping, fencing or
storage within structures and all trash shall be removed from the
242 of 465
3
site weekly. Compost piles and containers shall be set back at least
ten (10) feet from any property line when urban agriculture abuts a
residential land use.
(e) Maintenance. All urban agriculture land uses shall be maintained
in an orderly manner, including necessary watering, pruning, pest
control and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and shall
be maintained in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of
the Municipal Code.
(f) Water conservation and conveyance. To the extent reasonably
feasible, the use of sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be minimized. Drip irrigation or watering
by hand may be done at any time. The site must be designed and
maintained so that any water runoff is conveyed off-site into a city
right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting
downstream property.
(g) Identification/contact information. A clearly visible sign shall be
posted near the public right-of-way adjacent to all urban
agriculture land uses, which sign shall contain the name and
contact information of the manager or coordinator of the
agricultural land use. If a synthetic pesticide or herbicide is used in
connection with such use, the sign shall also include the name of
the chemical and the frequency of application. The contact
information for the manager or coordinator shall be kept on file
with the City. All urban agriculture signs must comport with
Section 3.8.7 of this Land Use Code.
(h) If produce from an urban agriculture land use is proposed to be
distributed throughout the City, the applicant must provide a list of
proposed Food Membership Distribution Sites in the application.
(i) Floodplains. If urban agriculture is proposed within a floodplain,
then a Floodplain Use Permit is required in accordance with
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
(j) Additional Impact Mitigation. Measures such as landscaping,
fencing, or setbacks to mitigate potential visual, noise, or odor
impacts on adjoining property may be required by the Director.
There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors,
heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line of the parcel
where the urban agriculture land use is conducted. Where an urban
agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a
243 of 465
4
minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the
property line.
(3) Notice. At the time of an initial application for an urban agriculture land
use within a residential zone (N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, M-
M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L) or if the urban agriculture land use
exceeds 0.5 acres in size, the Director shall determine whether the
proposed urban agriculture land use presents a significant impact on the
affected neighborhood, and if so, the Director shall schedule a
neighborhood meeting and provide mailed and posted notice for such
meeting. Such notice and neighborhood meeting shall be conducted in
accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Land Use Code.
Section 2. That Section 4.1(B)(1)(a) and 4.1(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 4.1 RURAL LANDS DISTRICT (R-U-L)
. . .
(a) Agricultural Uses:
1. Agricultural activities.
(ba) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Farm animals.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 4.2(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.2 URBAN ESTATE DISTRICT (U-E)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
244 of 465
5
2. Accessory uses.
3. Farm animals.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 4.3(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.3 RESIDENTIAL FOOTHILLS DISTRICT (R-F)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4.4(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 6. That Section 4.5(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
245 of 465
6
DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture
. . .
Section 7. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N)
. . .
3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the
following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores;
convenience retail stores; personal and business service shops;
small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and
clinics; community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation
facilities; schools; child care centers; open-air farmers markets;
and places of worship or assembly.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 4.6(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (M-M-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
246 of 465
7
Section 9. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new subsection 7 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(M-M-N)
. . .
7. Open-air farmers markets, if located within a park, central feature
or gathering place.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 4.7(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Division 4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, LOW DENSITY DISTRICT
(N-C-L)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
4. Urban agriculture.
Section 11. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT
(N-C-M)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
247 of 465
8
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 12. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 13. That Section 4.10(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N)
. . .
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings
2. Urban agriculture.
Section 14. That Section 4.10(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subsection 8 which reads in its entirety as follows:
DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N)
. . .
8. Open-air farmers markets.
. . .
248 of 465
9
Section 15. That Section 4.13(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.13 PUBLIC OPEN LANDS DISTRICT (P-O-L)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 16. That Section 4.14(B)(1)(a) and 4.14(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 4.14 RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (R-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Urban agriculture.
. . .
(2) The following uses are permitted in the R-C District subject to
administrative review:
…
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Farm animals.
2. Agricultural activities.
. . .
249 of 465
10
Section 17. That Section 4.16(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.16 DOWNTOWN (D)
. . .
(B) Permitted Uses.
(1) The following uses are permitted in the D District subject to basic
development review:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Land Use Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or
minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-
644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-
family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units),
provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
. . .
Section 18. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.17 RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (R-D-R)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
250 of 465
11
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 19. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.18 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 20. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.19 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT (C-C-N)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
…
Section 21. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
251 of 465
12
DIVISION 4.20 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT (C-C-R)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 22. That Section 4.21(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.21 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G)
. . .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the C-G District, subject to basic
development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are
part of an approved site-specific development plan:
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor
subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided
that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
252 of 465
13
. . .
Section 23. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.22 SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-S)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 24. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.23 NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (N-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 25. That Section 4.24(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
DIVISION 4.24 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-L)
. . .
(1) The following uses are permitted in the C-L District, subject to basic
development review:
253 of 465
14
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Urban agriculture.
(ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development
plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with
the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance
with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor
subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of
prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family
dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided
that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density
requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan.
(bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this
zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of
property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such
parcel on March 27, 1997, and which physically existed upon such
parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing
use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property.
. . .
Section 26. That Section 4.26(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.26 HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT (H-C)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 27. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
254 of 465
15
DIVISION 4.27 EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 28. That Section 4.28(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 4.28 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I)
. . .
(a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings.
2. Accessory uses.
3. Outdoor vendor.
4. Urban agriculture.
. . .
Section 29. That the definition “Agricultural activity” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows:
Agricultural activity shall mean farming, including plowing, tillage, cropping, installation
of best management practices, seeding, cultivating or harvesting for the production of
food and fiber products (except commercial logging and timber harvesting operations);
the grazing or raising of livestock (except in feedlots); aquaculture; sod production;
orchards; Christmas tree plantations; nurseries; and the cultivation of products as part of a
recognized commercial enterprise.
255 of 465
16
Section 30. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
(2) Development shall not include:
. . .
(d) the use of any land for the purpose of growing plants, crops, trees and
other agricultural or forestry products; for raising or feeding livestock
(other than in feedlots); for other agricultural uses or purposes, or for
the delivery of water by ditch or canal to agricultural uses or purposes,
provided none of the above creates a nuisance, and except that an urban
agriculture license is required in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this
Land Use Code.
. . .
Section 31. That the definition “Farm animals” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Farm animals shall mean animals commonly raised or kept in an agricultural,
rather than an urban, environment including, but not limited to, chickens, pigs,
sheep, goats, horses, cattle, llamas, emus, ostriches, donkeys and mules; provided,
however, that chicken hens, numbering six (6) or fewer, and ducks based on the lot
size thresholds outlined in Section 4-117 of the City Code, and exactly two (2)
pygmy or dwarf goats except as otherwise authorized in Section 4-121 of the City
Code shall not be considered to be farm animals.
Section 32. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Food membership distribution site” which reads in its entirety as
follows:
Food membership distribution site shall mean a site where a producer of
agricultural products delivers them for pick-up by customers who have pre-
purchased an interest in the agricultural products.
Section 33. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “Urban agriculture” which reads in its entirety as follows:
Urban agriculture shall mean gardening or farming involving any kind of lawful
plant, whether for personal consumption, sale, and/or donation, except that the
term urban agriculture does not include the cultivation, storage, and sale of crops,
vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises in accordance with
Section 3.8.1 of this Land Use Code. Urban agriculture is a miscellaneous use that
256 of 465
17
does not include “plant nursery and greenhouse” as a principal use and that is
subject to licensing in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this Land Use Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of
July, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
257 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 097, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE II & III,
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATED TO
THE CARE AND KEEPING OF ANIMALS
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City Council adopted the City Plan “Safety and Wellness Vision,”
which contains numerous policies supporting local food production, including Principle SW3, which
directs staff to encourage and support local food production to improve the availability and
accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and social benefits; and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 72, 1989, which allowed for
the keeping of bees for the production of honey; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 72, 2008, which allows for
the raising of up to six chickens per lot for food production, while ensuring that chickens are raised
in humane conditions in the City and do not present a nuisance to their neighbors; and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted citizen outreach regarding potential urban agriculture
land use changes, and throughout that process has been asked by numerous citizens to examine the
current provisions of the City Code pertaining to the keeping of animals and bees in the City; and
WHEREAS, staff has also worked with the Larimer County Humane Society to assess
whether allowing chickens to be kept in the City has created a nuisance in the community, and has
found that, although there have been 153 permits issued for the keeping of chickens, there has only
been the issuance of one citation; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched other communities and found that they allow for a wider
range of animals to be raised in urban environments, including ducks; and
WHEREAS, staff has conducted citizen outreach and has learned that many City residents
favor allowing ducks and an increased number of chickens in the City; and
WHEREAS, staff has also found through their research that other communities have updated
their regulations related to beekeeping to reflect the current best practices in the industry; and
WHEREAS, in view of this outreach, staff is recommending several amendments to Chapter
4 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that these recommended amendments are in the best
interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
258 of 465
Section 1. That Section 4-117 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 4-117. Sale of chickens and ducklings; quantity restricted; keeping of
chickens and ducks.
(a) Chickens or ducklings younger than eight (8) weeks of age may not be sold
in quantities of less than six (6) to a single purchaser.
(b) Except iIn those zone districts where the keeping of farm animals (as that
term is defined in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code) is not otherwise allowed, the
keeping of chickens roosters and/or ducks (poultry) is permitted, or more than six (6)
chicken hens is prohibited.. However, up to six (6) chicken hens may be kept per
parcel of property, subject to the following requirements and subject to all other
applicable provisions of this Chapter.
(1) Any person keeping poultry pursuant to this provisions must first have
been issued a permit by the Human Society and have received such
information or training pertaining to the keeping of poultry as said agency
deems appropriate;
(2) The keeping of roosters or drakes (male ducks) is prohibited; only
chicken or duck hens are permitted, and all references herein to poultry shall
mean chicken or duck hens only.
(3) Poultry may be kept in the following numbers:
a. On lots less than one-half (2) acre in size, up to eight (8)
chickens and/or ducks may be kept; and
b. On lots one-half (1/2) acre to one (1) acre in size, up to a total
of twelve (12) chickens and/or ducks may be kept; and
c. On lots more than one (1) acre in size, up to six (6) additional
chickens and/or ducks may be kept for every additional one-half (1/2)
acre; provided, however, that if more than twelve (12) chickens
and/or ducks, combined, are to be kept, all property owners abutting
the parcel where the poultry will be housed must be notified in
writing prior to obtaining a permit for said number of poultry.
(14) If a lot has more than one (1) dwelling unit, all adult residents and the
owner(s) of the lot must consent in writing to allowing the chicken hens
poultry on the property;
-2-
259 of 465
(25) Any person keeping chicken henspoultry pursuant to this provision
must first have been issued a permit by the Humane Society and have
received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of chicken
henspoultry as said agency deems appropriate. Prior to the issuance of said
license, a site inspection shall be conducted by the Humane Society to verify
compliance with the requirements of this subsection;
(36) The chicken henspoultry must be provided with a covered, predator-
resistant chickenpoultry house that is properly ventilated, designed to be
easily accessed, cleaned and maintained, and must consist of at least two (2)
square feet per chicken four (4) square feet per chicken hen or duck;
(47) During daylight hours, the chicken henspoultry must have access to
the chickenpoultry house and also have access to an outdoor enclosure that
is adequately fenced to protect them from predators;
(58) The chicken henspoultry must be further protected from predators by
being closed in the chickenpoultry house from dusk to dawn;
(69) Neither the chickenpoultry house nor the outdoor enclosure may be
located less than fifteen (15) feet from any abutting property line unless the
owner or keeper of the chicken henspoultry obtains the written consent of the
owner(s) of all abutting properties to which the enclosure is proposed to be
more closely located, in which event the agreed-upon location shall then be
deemed acceptable notwithstanding any subsequent change in ownership of
such abutting property or properties;
(710) The chicken henspoultry must be sheltered or confined in such
fashion as to prevent them from coming into contact with wild ducks or geese
or their excrement; and
(811) The chicken henspoultry may not be killed by or at the direction of the
owner or keeper thereof except pursuant to the lawful order of state or county
health officials, or for the purpose of euthanasia when surrendered to a
licensed veterinarian or the Humane Society for such purpose, or as otherwise
expressly permitted by law.
Section 2. That Section 4-228 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 4-228. Hives.
All bee colonies shall be kept in Langstroth type hives with removable frames
movable combs, which shall be kept in sound and usable condition.
-3-
260 of 465
Section 3. That Section 4-233(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-233. Colony densities.
. . .
(b) For each two (2) colonies authorized under colony densities, Subsection (a)
above, there may be maintained upon the same tract one (1) nucleus colony in a hive
structure not exceeding one (1) standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth ten
(10) frame hive body with no supers attached as required from time to time for
management of swarms. Each such nucleus colony shall be disposed of or combined
with an authorized colony within thirty(30)sixty (60) days after the date it is acquired.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 2nd day of July,
A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
261 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Joe Frank
Bruce Hendee
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Be Used
for Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on June 11, 2013, by a vote of 5-2 (nays: Cunniff, Poppaw), appropriates
funding in the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope, from January to
July, 2013 (six months). Other funding partners include United Way ($58,000), Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and
Serve 6.8 ($35,000). The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for
homeless and near homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important component in the community’s
network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-lived and non-recurring in Fort
Collins.
At Council’s direction on First Reading, a new Section was added to the Ordinance, affirming that the provision of
funds serves an important public purpose.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 11, 2013
(w/o attachments)
2. Powerpoint presentation
262 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: June 11, 2013
STAFF: Joe Frank
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
A. Resolution 2013-053 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with United Way of Larimer
County for Funding of Operations at the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund to Be Used
for Operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has received a request for funding in the amount of $45,000 for the operation of the Sister Mary Alice Murphy
Center of Hope, from January to July, 2013 (six months). Other funding partners include United Way ($58,000),
Bohemian Foundation ($45,000) and Serve 6.8 ($35,000). The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the
one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless and near homeless persons. The operation of the Center is an important
component in the community’s network of housing and complimentary services so that homelessness is rare, short-
lived and non-recurring in Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope (“Murphy Center”)
The Murphy Center, located at 242 Conifer Street, is the one-stop center in Fort Collins for homeless and near
homeless persons; approximately 23 agencies provide services at the Center; the Center also provides showers,
breakfast, phones/computers, washers/dryers, clothing, day shelter services, and more. Services available at the
Center include employment resources, housing assistance, financial counseling, transportation assistance, mental
health and substance abuse counseling, and more. Many believe that the Center is one of the most innovative facilities
in the nation for serving the homeless and near homeless. The Murphy Center is currently owned by the United Way
of Larimer County (UW) and operated by Touchstone Health Partners of Fort Collins.
During the past four years, the Murphy Center has been a major player in the local homeless service delivery system
and will play an even more critical role as the region moves toward a new and improved housing model. Notable
achievements of the Center include:
• Total number of visits: 110,782.
• Now averaging 156 visitors per day, up from 80 at the end of the 1st year.
• Now have 23 different agencies that provide services out of the Center.
• Total number of showers taken: 12,841.
• Total number of loads of laundry done: 4,649.
• Total number of unduplicated people provided services by a Resource Specialist: 10,148.
• 37% of the people served are part of a family with children.
• In 2012, 77% of the people that meet with a Resource Specialist report being literally homeless, a 57%
increase from 2011.
• Received mail through the center: more than 800 people.
• Utilized lockers at the center: more than 250 people.
• Provided voicemail boxes: more than 150 people.
• 429 people have been assisted in getting Food Stamps.
• 106 people have been assisted in getting Aid to the Needy.
• 253 people have been assisted in getting Medicaid.
• 879 people have received mental health and/or substance abuse services.
• 1,312 households have received emergency rent assistance.
• 2,507 households have received utility assistance.
263 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 11, 2013 -2- ITEM 3
The approximate $2.5M cost of construction of the Center was funded through a collaboration of private foundations,
private resources, and the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Since 2004, the City has contributed approximately
$90,000 in CDBG and General Fund dollars to build the facility, and as such has a legal and financial interest. In
addition, the City has funded several of the agencies that occupy the Center. As equity partners on the land (along with
the City of Loveland), City staff has met with United Way and Serve 6.8 officials. Our goal, moving forward, is a
smooth transition on executing new legal documents, and ensuring that parameters for property use tied to federal
funding are clear. One of these parameters includes federal limitations on inherently religious activities such as
worship, religions instruction, or proselytization. We are also interested in being sure that the Murphy Center has a
critical role to play in the future in the “Continuum of Care” for the homeless and near homeless.
Ownership and Operations of the Center
The Murphy Center opened in March, 2009. At that time, the United Way (UW) committed to owning/funding/operating
the Center for one year, hoping to find someone who would take over operations of the Center from United Way in
year two. Funding was secure for the first three years of operation, until March 2012; the Center was originally
intended to be transferred debt free. The original plan was for Touchstone Health Partners to take over the facility,
and over several years, plans for the transition were discussed. Last March 2012, those plans started to fall apart
when Touchstone announced it was no longer interested in taking over the Center. Subsequently, United Way had
to search for a new owner/operator. UW had serious but unsuccessful discussions with several potential agencies
about taking over the facility, including but not limited to, Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army. UW was also left
with the challenge of more than $180,000 in additional expenses to continue operations of the facility. United Way
had to use general reserves not intended for this purpose while it searched for a new partner. United Way also
seriously considered closing or curtailing services at the Center when reserve funding ran out in December 2012.
Instead, United Way chose to keep the Center operating and sought community partners to cover the $180,000 in
extra costs.
Last November, a small group of interested stakeholders met to discuss the future of the Murphy Center. The group
consisted of Gordan Thibedeau (United Way), Randy Ratliff (CEO Touchstone Health Partners), Cheryl Zimlich
(Bohemian Foundation), Alison Hade, City of Loveland (Community Partnership Department), Julie Brewen (FCHA),
Bryce Hach (Homeward 2020), and Joe Frank (Social Sustainability Department). Last January, the group met with
Mark Orphan, Pastor of the Timberline Church Missions and Outreach program, and Mike Walker, Timberline Church
Local Outreach Director, about potentially taking ownership and operation of the Center.
Serve 6.8 is the “community service” arm of the Timberline Church. “Serve 6.8” is in reference to two passages in the
bible (Micah and Isaiah). Serve 6.8's stated mission is “people serving our community to demonstrate God’s love in
tangible ways to people in Northern Colorado with no strings attached.” Serve 6.8 has said “We partner with many
local organizations to promote their mission, provide volunteers, and offer assistance.” Serve 6.8 has been involved
in a variety of “ministries” and partnerships in the community, some involving the homeless. Serve 6.8 was heavily
involved in the High Park Fire recovery efforts. Serve 6.8 now has 501(c)3 status, and is a separate entity from the
Timberline Church.
Serve 6.8 submitted a letter of intent to assume ownership and operation of the Murphy Center, and most appear to
be comfortable with them. United Way is satisfied that it has the resources and mission to take over and successfully
operate the facility. Mark Orphan and Mike Walker will be the primary managers of the Murphy Center. They indicated
that the Center will continue to deliver current services and will keep the current professional staff. Serve 6.8 will also
be using volunteers. At this time, Serve 6.8 is doing its due diligence, developing a business plan, completing
necessary agreements, talking with the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, etc. Serve 6.8 has said that they have
recently embarked on a fund raising campaign for the Murphy Center, with a goal of $5 million; having already raised
about $750,000. The goal is to complete the ownership/operation transition on/around July 1, 2013.
The United Way and Serve 6.8 has been very transparent in the transition process, including involving key
stakeholders early on, working with existing Murphy Center staff, presenting to the North Fort Collins Business
Association, informing Murphy Center customers, working with staff from the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins,
informing Murphy Center funders, informing Timberline Church members, and providing interviews and information
to the local press. UW/Serve 6.8 intends to do additional outreach when the transfer of ownership/operation finally
occurs, and Serve 6.8 has indicated that they plan to hold a formal “opening” event later this year, possibly as part of
National Homeless Month.
264 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 11, 2013 -3- ITEM 3
An article of the Murphy Center written by Sarah Jane Kyle, and published in the June 2, 1013 Coloradoan on the
Murphy Center transition is attached (Attachment 1)
.
Funding Request
The United Way is seeking funding partners to continue the operation of the facility. The Center’s monthly operating
cost is about $38,600; approximately 85% of that is personnel and 15% is operations. United Way has a federal grant
that covers about $8,100 per month; the net monthly cost is approximately $30,500. Six months of operations costs
approximately $183,000. United Way’s proposal is that it provides $58,000, the Bohemian Foundation and the City
each provide $45,000 and Serve 6.8 provides $35,000, for the operation of the Murphy Center from January to July,
2013 (6 months). The City of Loveland was approached to participate in funding but declined; less than 10% of the
Murphy Center visitors are from Loveland, and because the participation is so low, it declined to participate in the one-
time funding of operations.
According to Gordan Thibedeau, Executive Director of the United Way:
“There are two reasons that we are seeking continuation funds to support the operation of the
Murphy Center. First, it was our intent to transfer ownership no later than December 31, 2012, which
did not happen. Second, we have been unable to secure additional grant funding to support the
operation primarily because we play a “pass through” role. We were able to overcome this concern
for the first 4 years of funding but foundations have become increasingly interested in having the
funds go directly to the service provider.”
Funding Alternatives
During the May 28 Work Session, Council specifically asked staff to consider making the funds available to a different
agency (not United Way) that could potentially benefit from leveraging the City funds. There are four alternatives that
the City Council could consider to fund the operations of the Murphy Center:
A. “United Way” Option - Approve the original funding request to United Way in the amount of $45,000, for
operating expenses incurred between January 1 and June 31, 2013. The funds would go directly to United
Way for additional expenses they incurred to continue the operation of the facility.
B. “Touchstone” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the direct recipient of the
funds being Touchstone Health Partners, for operating expenses incurred between January 1 and June 31,
2013. The funds would go directly to Touchstone Health Partners for expenses they incurred during this time
period. Touchstone is the only agency at the Murphy Center that incurs significant operating expenses.
Touchstone has said they would then reimburse United Way.
C. “Serve 6.8” Option - Approve the funding request, in the amount of $45,000, with the direct recipient being
Serve 6.8 for future operating expenses. Serve 6.8 has not incurred any direct operating costs of the facility.
So, if it is the recipient of the funds, the funds would be used to cover future operating costs (after July 1,
2013). The reasoning behind this is different from the other options; funding future operations (saving Serve
6.8 and/or United Way from having to do it) rather than reimbursing UW for past expenses. Since this option
would no longer be framed as a sort of “emergency”, it also raises a question of why Serve 6.8 should not just
apply for the funds through the City’s Competitive Process like other social service agencies.
D. “Do nothing” option – No City funding.
According to agency representatives, the “benefit” to Touchstone or Serve 6.8 in receiving the City funds, for instance,
to leverage other funds, is not significant, because the funds would already have been spent, and would not be
available to “match” other grants. The funds would show up on their balance sheet as a contribution from the City;
the City’s financial support is important to other potential funders.
265 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 11, 2013 -4- ITEM 3
Funding Agreement
The major terms of the “funding agreement” are as follows:
1. The City shall pay the agency selected by the Council the sum of $45,000 upon receipt of the expense report.
2. The funds will be (or must have been) used for personnel and non-personnel costs associated with the
operation of the Murphy Center.
3. The agency shall submit a detailed expense report to the City for our review and approval.
4. The process and conditions of turning the facility over to Serve 6.8 should be as transparent and inclusive as
possible to the critical stakeholders.
5. The existing functions of the Murphy Center as a one stop center and entry for homeless services must
continue; and Serve 6.8, needs to be at the table in the discussions around a new homeless service delivery
model, known as ”Continuum of Care”.
6. The City shall have a representative on the advisory/leadership board of the new Murphy Center.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The City’s share will come from the City’s General Fund Reserves. Providing financial assistance to the Murphy
Center is a long term investment. Helping people out of homelessness prevents future community costs associated
with homelessness.
Typically, funding requests for human services are made thru the City’s Spring Competitive Process. The Spring
Competitive Process was not a good match for the current Murphy Center situation because the funds do not become
available until October 1, 2013. Also, the Competitive Process funds cannot pay for any cost of services, projects or
programs expended prior to October 1, 2013.
Over the years, the City has also funded from the General Fund, several social service programs and activities, outside
of the Competitive Process. For example, since 2009, the City has funded:
• Homeward 2020 (the original $100,000 was through the exceptions process) and continue to do so with a
$25,000 sponsorship each year out of the City Manager’s Office budget (and approved through BFO), for a
total of $175,000.
• The Murphy Center Capital Campaign in 2009 ($5,000), 2010 ($6,000), and 2011 ($2,000) using contingency
funding.
• The United Way Temporary Winter Homeless Shelter ($3,000 – operating costs).
• The Crossroads Safehouse, in 2010 - $3000 – appraisal report; and, in 2010 - $350,000 for renovation of
Crossroads’ new facility, from Police Capital Improvement Expansion fees.
• The Bender Mobile Home Park relocation assistance – 2012 ($50,000) – BFO.
• The City has also provided “sponsorships” through a donation and sponsorship line item in BFO through the
City Manager’s Office (CMO). For those sponsorships that were unexpected and not funded through BFO,
the CMO usually relies on Contingency or Community Opportunities funds to cover. Agencies receiving this
funding include United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Crossroads Safehouse, and the Food Bank of Larimer
County.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The funding request has no environmental impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative B - Touchstone, because it most closely responds to the direction of Council
at its May 28 Work Session. The Murphy Center plays a critical role in the delivery of services to the homeless and
near-homeless in the community, a role that is likely to become more important as a new model (e.g., “Continuum of
Care”) evolves in the North Front Range area. United Way has carried the cost of operating the Center for the past
four years, over a year longer than originally intended. United Way has demonstrated that it needs the financial
assistance of the City and the other partners, to pay for part of the costs of six months of operations of the Center.
266 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 11, 2013 -5- ITEM 3
After that time, it appears very likely that Serve 6.8 will take over the ownership and operation of the Center. Serve
6.8 has said that it intends to continue the original mission and services of the Center. Serve 6.8 also appears to have
the capacity, experience and mission to continue the important services the Center now provides, and to work
collaboratively toward a new homeless model.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Coloradoan Article, June 2, 2013, “Murphy Center travels unexpected journey”, by Sarah Jane Kyle
2. May 28 Council Work Session Summary - Operation of the Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope
3. Powerpoint presentation
267 of 465
1
1
Murphy Center Funding Request
• Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082-2013,
Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund to be Used for Operation of the
Sister May Lice Murphy Center of Hope.
• Adopted on First Reading on June 11, 2013
2
The Murphy Center
• The one-stop center for homeless and near
homeless persons;
• Services provided:
– Counseling and referral; 23 agencies
– Day to day needs, and more
Plays critical role in delivery of homeless
services in Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 2
268 of 465
2
3
History
• Opened in March 2009
• Serve 6.8 has taken over ownership and
operations
• For 4 years, United Way had been paying for
the operation, beyond initial estimates.
4
Murphy Center Funding Request
– Touchstone Health Partners is recipient of
the City funds - $45,000.
– Funding partners: City of Fort Collins
($45k); Bohemian Foundation ($45k); Serve
6.8 ($35k); and United Way ($58k)
269 of 465
3
5
Staff Recommendation
• Per Council direction, a new Section was
added to the Ordinance affirming that the
provision of funds serves an important public
purpose.
• Staff recommends adoption.
270 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 082, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND
TO BE USED FOR OPERATION OF THE SISTER MARY ALICE MURPHY
CENTER OF HOPE
WHEREAS, the Sister Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope (the “Murphy Center”) is owned
by the United Way of Larimer County (the “United Way”), operated by Touchstone Health Partners
(“Touchstone”), and is located at 242 Conifer Street in Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the Murphy Center plays a critical role in the delivery of services to the
homeless and near-homeless populations in the Fort Collins area, providing employment resources,
housing assistance, financial counseling, transportation assistance, mental health and substance abuse
counseling, help with obtaining food stamps and Medicaid, and everyday services, such as a place
to shower and wash laundry, use a computer and check voicemail; and
WHEREAS, helping people avoid or get out of homelessness promotes health, safety and the
general welfare, not just for those receiving services, but also for the community in general by
reducing burdens on emergency medical services and law enforcement resources; and
WHEREAS, Serve 6.8, a nonprofit corporation affiliated with Timberline Church, has
expressed interest in assuming ownership and operation of the Murphy Center, and United Way and
Serve 6.8 hope to complete the transition of ownership and operation in mid-2013; and
WHEREAS, United Way is seeking partners to help fund operation of the Murphy Center
from January 1 to June 30, 2013, and has proposed that the following parties provide funding in the
specified amounts:
United Way $58,000
Bohemian Foundation $45,000
City $45,000
Serve 6.8 $35,000
and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2013-053, the City will provide operational funding for
the Murphy Center; and
WHEREAS, homeless assistance programs support several City Council-adopted plans,
including the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan FY2010-2014, which
contains objectives and strategies for reducing and preventing homelessness, and City Plan, which
targets the housing needs of special populations in the community, including the homeless; and
271 of 465
WHEREAS, because of the important public purpose served by the Murphy Center, the City
will pay $45,000 of funding to Touchstone upon receipt of an expense report from Touchstone
demonstrating expenditures for personnel and non-personnel costs incurred in operating the Murphy
Center during the six months between January 1 and June 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that, for the reasons stated above, the City's
provision of funds for operation of the Murphy Center serves an important public purpose for a
significant part of the community.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General
Fund the sum of FORTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($45,000) to fund operations of the Sister
Mary Alice Murphy Center of Hope.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 11th day of
June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
272 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Helen Matson
Craig Foreman
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a Temporary
Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC
for the Encompass-River District Block One Mixed Use Development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development is a mixed use development at 418 Linden Street
consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 4, 2013, authorizes the conveyance of several easements
that are required for this project for improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and River enhancement,
drainage and landscape areas. At Council direction on First Reading, two alternatives for fees for the other proposed
easements are provided.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to questions and concerns raised by Council at the June 4 meeting regarding the easements for the work along
the Poudre River, additional information is being provided.
The current condition of the City-owned property does not meet City’s vision for the Poudre River. The River bank is
nearly vertical with a slope of 2:1; the landscaping is all non-native and is in poor condition. In addition there is quite
a bit of old concrete lining the banks. In this condition, the City’s property is not providing a high value habitat.
Attachment 2 is a photo showing the existing conditions.
The improvements planned by the Developer and approved by the City will provide many benefits to the City. The
proposed bank is laid back, with proposed slopes that range from a 2:1 to a 4:1 ratio, which is superior to the current
near vertical slope. All the dumped concrete will be removed. All the non-native vegetation will be replaced with native
landscaping. Planning staff diligently worked with the Developer to ensure that the landscaping along the river bank
and in the buffer area will provide a continuous shrub and tree cover with a sense of enclosure for pedestrians traveling
along the proposed pathway. In the finished state, this area will exceed the vision of the City, as established by the
Poudre River Enhancement Plan, which is an addendum to the Poudre Master Drainage Plan. Details of these
improvements are provided in Attachment 3.
Along with constructing these new improvements, the Developer will be permanently responsible for all maintenance,
with the exception of the scour maintenance of the Linden Street Bridge.
Compensation for Easements
Staff recommends that the Developer pay $13,449 for the encroachment easements, or the approved policy amount,
whichever is less. This amount is not due until the policy is adopted or December 31, 2013.
At Council direction, two alternatives for fees for the other proposed easements are provided.
• Alternative A
Since the value of the enhanced improvements being provided by the Developer exceed the monetary value of the
easements, the easement of $17,675 is waived.
• Alternative B
The Developer will pay the City the total value of the other Easements on City-owned Property, which is $17,675.
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 28
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading, Alternative A..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 4, 2013 (w/o attachments)
2. Photo of existing conditions
3. Details of bank stabilization and retaining walls
4. Powerpoint presentation
274 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: June 4, 2013
STAFF: Helen Matson
Craig Foreman
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a Temporary Construction
Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the
Encompass-River District Block One Mixed Use Development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Encompass”) is a mixed use development at 418
Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges
LLC (“LB LLC”). Several easements are required for this project. These easement interests are needed for
improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Encompass is a mixed use development at 418 Linden consisting of one building with two floors of office space, two
floors of apartments (12 units) and a restaurant. The first floor of this building has a walk-way to the rear of the lot.
The O’Neil family is developing the property. Their software company, Encompass Technologies will occupy the
second floor. The property is held in the name of Linden Bridges LLC.
Encompass looked at plans to relocate to a larger space and instead chose to develop a new office as part of a mixed-
use development as a long-term investment in downtown Fort Collins. The site at 418 Linden provides a great
opportunity for Encompass to create a vibrant mixed-use development that connects downtown Fort Collins to the
Cache la Poudre River.
This project embodies the character and vision of the City Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the 2001 Poudre River
Master Plan, and the R-D-R zone district for high quality redevelopment in downtown with river interface that is
envisioned for the Downtown River Redevelopment District.
Easements Requested by Encompass:
The properties affected by these requests include the property between the development site and the Poudre River.
The City owns the top of the bank, which was acquired 30 years ago for a recreational trail, the river bank and the land
under the river. In the end, the trail was constructed on the other side of the River and the City will not utilize this site
as a trail in the future. The City property has not been maintained for years. All easement requests are shown on the
Easement Exhibit, Attachment 2.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Encroachment Easement (shown in green on Easement Exhibit):
This easement would be made up of several easement areas located in the right of way. Since permanent
improvements are being constructed in the right-of-way, it is appropriate to grant a permanent easement instead of
a revocable permit. Encompass will have a permanent right to use these improvements in perpetuity. The City cannot
cancel or terminate this easement; only Encompass could request to have this easement vacated. If the City
determined it needed the land under the improvements, it would need to enter into negotiations with the owner to
purchase this easement interest. In the Easement Agreement, Encompass will be required to carry property and
liability insurance and will need to have the City added as additional insured.
There is a significant change in grade along Linden Street. This creates the need for an upper and lower sidewalk
similar to properties downtown. Thus some of the permanent features requiring easements are a ramp, stairs and a
planter box. In addition, Encompass has requested an outdoor deck along Linden Street for the restaurant. The
restaurant will also have two decks on their property with a river view. Having the deck along Linden Street is a key
urban design element.
275 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 28
Permanent Non-Exclusive Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement (shown in yellow on Easement
Exhibit):
This easement abuts the development site and includes a strip of land from the top of the river bank, to the water’s
edge. The river bank needs to be stabilized and this project plans include reconstruction approximately 160 feet of
the river bank to meet the design criteria for a 100 year flood event. Included with the bank stabilization are two
decorative retaining walls.
Additional improvements are being completed by Encompass along the bank as per the City’s Poudre River
Enhancement Plan. This work is a benefit to both the development and the City by providing additional stabilization
of the banks and improved scour protection for the Linden Street bridge. Encompass will complete all the construction.
When the work is complete and approved by Stormwater Utilities, the City will repay Encompass for river enhancement
work that benefits the City from a combination of Stormwater Funds and Bridge Engineering Funds.
As per the Land Use Code, the project is required to provide a continuous buffer and a walking path along the top of
the bank. It is planned to build the buffer and path on the development site and the City-owned property. The
easement grants Encompass access for the path and its users.
Encompass will maintain all improvements located in this easement area, with the exception of the bridge
protection. After acceptance of the work by the City, the City will maintain the bridge protection. The City will not
perform maintenance on the trail in the easement area. The City’s public trail is on the other side of the River.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement (shown in yellow and outlined in red on Easement Exhibit);
Encompass is requesting a permanent 20-foot wide drainage easement to carry their development flows, as well
as the flows from the property to the south, from their water quality pond, in an eighteen-inch pipe under the City’s
property to the Poudre River. This easement location is in part of the Permanent Construction, Access and
Maintenance Easement, but we requested a separate legal description for this use.
Temporary Construction Easement (shown on Temporary Easement Exhibit):
The above easement gives Encompass the right to do their bank stabilization work; however, they need to be able
to access the bank from the Poudre River. In order to complete work in the River, a Floodplain Use Permit is
required. Encompass has met with the Floodplain Administrator on site and an access area has been identified.
The preferred access point goes through the Encompass site and goes through a break in trees on the City
property to access the River. This area is shown on the Temporary Easement Exhibit, Attachment 3. There will
be very minimal disturbance in the river bed. The banks will only be disturbed in the areas of the Construction,
Access and Maintenance Easement. All disturbed areas along construction access from top of bank to the River
shall be revegetated per approved landscape plans.
The area of the Temporary Construction Easement extends upriver under the bridge and adjacent to the Northside
Aztlan Community Center site. Encompass will construct a temporary upstream and downstream coffer dam and
pump in the Temporary Construction Easement area. Downstream there is an area where the river is separated
by a stretch of land. The temporary coffer dam will divert the River to the eastern side of the land and they will
also install a pump in low point discharge on other side of island.
The duration of the requested Temporary Construction Easement will start when our Easement Agreement is
signed and will continue to December 31, 2014. The work is planned to be in intervals and this is not a
consecutive time period. While the Temporary Construction Easement does give them permission to enter our
property, they will also need a current Floodplain Use Permit to access the Temporary Construction Easement
area. At the meeting held in May with Stormwater staff, it was determined that work in the River cannot
commence until the end of September of 2013 due to the high river conditions this year.
Permanent Non-Exclusive Landscape Easement (shown in orange on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested a Non-Exclusive Permanent Landscape Easement to landscape a 2,206 square-foot
area adjacent to their property to improve the view for their project. The strip of land is southeast of the
Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement area and goes to the current top of bank. This area is currently
not maintained and does not contain much vegetation. Encompass submitted a landscape plan during the
approval process of the development. This landscape plan was approved and determined to meet the criteria of
the Land Use Code 4.17 – River Landscape Buffers.
276 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 4, 2013 -3- ITEM 28
Revocable Permit (shown in purple on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested the right to come into the large purple shaded area on the Easement Exhibit to trim the
existing trees. The trees are not well maintained and contain numerous dead branches. Encompass wants to trim
these trees to improve the view of the river to users of the development. The requested Revocable Permit is for
twenty (20) years unless revoked sooner, and will allow trimming of trees, but not tree removal.
Along with the Revocable Permit, Encompass must meet with the Forestry Department to agree on which trees
can be trimmed. Once Encompass gets the official permission from Forestry, the tree company doing the trimming
will need to obtain a permit from Forestry to do the actual trimming. In addition, since this is in a floodplain,
Encompass will be required to obtain a Floodplain Use Permit for each time they do any trimming activities.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Encroachment Easements. These easements are located in the right of way. Currently the City does not have an
adequate policy in place on how to process or value permanent easements in the public right of way.
Encroachment Permits are charged $10/year and permanent easements on City-owned properties are
compensated at fair market value. Staff will be bringing an Ordinance to Council in the next few months with a
recommendation on how to process and value easements in the right of way. Until a policy is established,
compensation will be based on fair market value.
Staff has set a value for the encroachment easements requested. Values on Linden Street have increased
dramatically over the last two years. The price per square foot assigned for these easements is an average of the
last two properties sold. That value is $19.50 per square foot.
The encroachment easements for the stairs with handrails and the ramp will typically be used not only for
occupants or customers of Encompass, but could also be used by the general public. For this reason, the
easement percentage of value is 50% and the easement value for these areas is $5,099.00.
The easement percentage of value for the encroachment easement for the outdoor patio deck is 75%. That is
because the general public will not have any use in this area unless they are customers of the restaurant. The
easement value for the patio deck is $8,350.00, or $13,449.00 for both areas. Developer will be charged
$13,449.00 for the Encroachment Easement; however, if the City Council, on or before December 31, 2013,
adopts a policy for granting of easements in the City’s rights of way, including charges therefor, Encompass will
instead pay compensation for the Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to
exceed $13,449.00. Compensation for the Encroachment Easement is not due until the new policy is adopted or
December 31, 2013.
Other Easements: The City’s practice is to charge for easements on estimated market value. Market values for
properties are estimated on a wide range of criteria including, the zoning, topography, physical constraints and
overall use of the property. After considering the above criteria and consulting with area appraisers, staff set the
market value for the City parcels at $5,000 per acre. It is difficult to set a value for properties within floodplains
because there are not many comparable sales. These properties are usually purchased by government entities for
preservation. The appraisers compared these properties to highly restricted conservation easement properties.
The values recommended by the appraisers range from $3,500 to $5,000/acre. The exception is in the
Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. Approximately half of its area is in the FEMA Moderate Risk
Floodplain. Generally there is not a deduction for the developable value because it is relatively inexpensive to
cure. This small area would not be developable on its own; however, since this area is being used to enhance the
development of the adjacent property, the value of this area would be about 50% of developable market value, or
$10 per square foot.
Using this data, staff has determined a value of $17,675.00 for the Construction, Access, Maintenance Easement
and the Drainage Easement, the Landscape Easement, the Temporary Construction Easement, and the
Revocable Permit. It is staff’s recommendation that we do not charge Encompass for these easements because
the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping improvements and tree trimming provide benefits to the City
that exceed the value of the easements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
277 of 465
COPY
COPY
COPY
June 4, 2013 -4- ITEM 28
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff from Parks and Utilities have not identified
any concerns.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Easement Exhibit
3. Temporary Easement Exhibit
278 of 465
Attachment 2 – Page 1 of 3 - View is facing west towards Linden Street Bridge.
Example of steep slopes and Siberian Elms. Forestry rated existing Willow as “fair”. The Willow will be removed and will be
mitigated with three trees.
ATTACHMENT 2
279 of 465
Attachment 2 – Page 2 of 3 – River view facing east.
Example of concrete and aggregate with young Siberian Elms 280 of growing 465 up the bank.
Attachment 2 – Page 3 of 3 – View from Linden Street Bridge.
Example of current riprap and rubble. With the bank stabilization going all the way to the bridge, the aesthetics will be
improved as compared to existing.
281 of 465
282 of 465
283 of 465
284 of 465
285 of 465
1
Agenda Item #28
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084,
2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Four
Easements, a Temporary Construction
Easement, and a Revocable Permit on City
Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property
July 2, 2013
ATTACHMENT 4
286 of 465
2
287 of 465
3
288 of 465
4
289 of 465
5
Figure 1: Poudre River Enhancement Project
Developed in 2003, an addendum to the Poudre River Master Drainage Plan
On the right bank (the side of the river where Block One is proposed), a
retaining wall is illustrated.
290 of 465
6
Figure 2: Block One Perspective Drawing
Exhibit 1, below, illustrates the location of the two retaining walls on the site, which
range in exposure (above ground) from 1’-7” (top wall) to 2’-6” (lower wall).
Note that extensive vegetation (a continuous buffer) will be planted in front of the
walls so that the walls will not be visible once the plant material is established.
291 of 465
7
Figure 3: Block One Site
Plans
Above: Station 11+25’ illustrating
bioengineering and retaining walls
Right: Landscape plan which illustrates
the walls interspersed with shrub and
grass plantings to create a more
naturalized river stabilization.
292 of 465
8
Figure 4: Block One Site Plans
Technical specification provided by the manufacturer of the retaining wall. Note
that the wall’s exposure ranges from 1’-7” to 2’-6” (blue boxes highlight where the
exposed wall sections are).
293 of 465
9
294 of 465
10
10
295 of 465
11 11
296 of 465
12
297 of 465
13
Easements Compensation
Staff recommends that the Developer pay
$13,449 for the encroachment easements, or the
approved policy amount. This amount is not due
until the policy is adopted or 12/31/2013.
At Council direction, two alternatives for fees for
the other proposed easements on City-owned
Property are provided.
298 of 465
14
Easements Compensation (continued)
• Alternative A: Since the value of the enhanced
improvements being provided by the
Developer exceed the monetary value of the
easements, the easement fee of $17,675 is
waived; or
• Alternative B: The Developer will pay the City
the total value of the other easements on City-
owned Property, which is $17,675.
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on
Second Reading, Alternative A.
299 of 465
15
This Concludes Our
Presentation
300 of 465
ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2013
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF FOUR EASEMENTS, A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND A REVOCABLE PERMIT ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO LINDEN BRIDGES LLC FOR THE
ENCOMPASS-RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the right-of-way for Linden Street between Willow
Street and the Poudre River (the “City Right-of-Way”); and
WHEREAS, the City is also the owner of a parcel of real property located adjacent to and
under the Poudre River as described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference
(the “River Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, the City Right-of-Way and the River Parcel are referred to herein as the “City
Property”; and
WHEREAS, Linden Bridges LLC (the “Developer”) is the owner of a parcel of real property
located at 418 Linden Street, adjacent to the City Property (the “Developer’s Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed a mixed-use development to be constructed on the
Developer’s Property, which would consist of one building with two floors of office space, two
floors of apartments, and a restaurant (the “Development”); and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the Development, the Developer has requested four permanent, non-
exclusive easements on the City Property, as follows:
• an encroachment easement in the City Right-of-Way for a ramp, stairs, a
planter box, a deck, and upstairs balconies as described on Exhibit “B”,
attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment
Easement”);
• a construction, access and maintenance easement on the River Parcel as
described on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the
“Access Easement”);
• a drainage easement on the River Parcel for drainage from the Developer’s
Property to the Poudre River as described on Exhibit “D”, attached and
incorporated herein by reference (the “Drainage Easement”); and
• a landscape easement on the River Parcel as described on Exhibit “E”,
attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Landscape Easement”);
and
WHEREAS, the Encroachment, Access, Drainage and Landscape Easements are collectively
referred to herein as the “Permanent Easements”; and
301 of 465
WHEREAS, the Developer would be required to maintain any improvements constructed
within the Permanent Easements; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested a temporary construction easement to do
riverbank stabilization work as part of the Development, as shown on Exhibit “F”, attached and
incorporated herein by reference (the “TCE”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested the right to come onto a portion of the River
Parcel to trim existing trees and maintain the view of the Poudre River from the Development, and
City staff is recommending that this right be handled through a revocable permit (the “Revocable
Permit”); and
WHEREAS, the Revocable Permit would expire in twenty years if not sooner revoked, and
would require the Developer to consult with the City Forester before doing any tree trimming on the
River Parcel; and
WHEREAS, the area of the proposed Revocable Permit is described on Exhibit “G”, attached
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have an established policy on setting compensation for
easements in the City’s rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of such a policy, compensation would be based on the fair market
value of the easement granted; and
WHEREAS, the Developer would be charged $13,449 as fair market value for the
Encroachment Easement; however, if the City Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a
policy, whether by ordinance or resolution, for the granting of easements in the City’s rights-of-way,
including charges therefor, the Developer will instead pay compensation for the Encroachment
Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449; and
[ALTERNATIVE A] WHEREAS, the total value of the other proposed Permanent
Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit is approximately $17,675, but City staff is
recommending that the City not charge for these property interests because the enhanced riverbank
improvements, landscaping improvement and tree trimming services that the Developer will
undertake as part of the Development provide benefits to the City that exceed this value; and
[ALTERNATIVE B] WHEREAS, the Developer will also pay the City the total value of the
other proposed Permanent Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit, which is approximately
$17,675; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey
or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided
that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best
interests of the City; and
-2-
302 of 465
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 10 of the City Charter states that the Council may grant a
permit for the use or occupation of any street, alley or public place, and that such permit shall be
revocable by the City Council at its pleasure, whether or not such right to revoke is expressly
reserved in such permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
[ALTERNATIVE A]
Section 1. That the benefits that the City will receive from conveying the Permanent
Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit to the Developer, as recited above, exceed the
difference between the fair market value of those property interests and the amount the Developer
will pay the City for the property interests.
Section 12. That the City Council herebytherefore finds that the conveyance of the
Permanent Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit to the Developer as provided herein is in
the best interests of the City.
Section 23. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Permanent Easements, TCE and Revocable Permit to the Developer on
terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or
appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes
to the legal descriptions of the property interests to be conveyed, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of such property interests.
[ALTERNATIVE B]
Section 1. That the Developer will pay fair market value (or such other amount as may
be determined under a future policy) for the Encroachment Easement and will pay fair market value
for the other Permanent Easements, and the City will also benefit from the improvements the
Developer will make on the River Parcel.
Section 12. That the City Council herebytherefore finds that the conveyance of the
Permanent Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit to the Developer as provided herein is in
the best interests of the City.
Section 23. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Permanent Easements, TCE and Revocable Permit to the Developer on
terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or
appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes
to the legal descriptions of the property interests to be conveyed, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of such property interests.
-3-
303 of 465
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 11th day of
June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
304 of 465
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of the “River Parcel”
A tract of land situate in the SE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
Considering 6th P.M., Larimer the west County, line of Colorado, the NW1/which 4 of said is more Section particularly 12 as bearing described N 0°06'56" as follows: W with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto; and commencing at the W1/4 corner of said Section 12; thence along
the south line of the NW1/4 of said Section 12 S 89°59'14" E 1847.34 feet to a point on the northeasterly
boundary of that tract described in Book 777, Page 414 of the Larimer County records and to the True
Point of Beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence along said northeasterly boundary
N 48°51'55" W 200.28 feet to a point on the northwesterly boundary of said tract; thence along said
northwesterly boundary S 41°08'05" W 16.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary of that tract
described in Book 1205, Page 550 of the Larimer County records; thence N 48°51'16" W 64.65 feet to a
point on the easterly boundary of that tract described in Book 973, Page 57 of the Larimer County
records; thence along said easterly boundary N 24°25'55" W 314.27 feet to a point on the easterly
boundary of a tract described in Book 1132, Page 490 of the Larimer County records; thence along said
easterly boundary N 4°20'05" E 230.98 feet to a point on the southwesterly boundary of that tract
described in Book 1132, Page 491 of the Larimer County records; thence along said southwesterly
boundary and its northwesterly extension N 38°37'55" W 163.46 feet to the southeasterly line of Linden
Street; thence along said southeasterly line N 41°08'55" E 211.87 feet; thence S 19°38'12” E 271.75 feet;
thence S 7°57'06" E 289.81 feet; thence S 15°36’45" E 139.92 feet; thence S 36°54’12" E 139.95 feet;
thence S 61°00'29" E 199.94 feet; thence S 25°59'13" E 86.02 feet to a point on the northerly boundary
of a tract described in Book 1406, Page 775 of the Larimer County records; thence along the northerly
boundary of said tract N 89°57'00" W 29.60 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said tract;
thence along said westerly boundary S 0"03'00" W 2.14 feet to a point on the south line of the NW1/4 of
said Section 12; thence along said south line N 89°59'14" W 150.83 feet to the Point of Beginning.
305 of 465
DESCRIPTION 1: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT
An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River
District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet
from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the
Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 176.45 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10"
West, 26.12 feet; thence, North 48° 18' 52" West, 2.33 feet; thence, North 43° 35' 56"
East, 26.15 feet; thence, South 47° 58' 38" East, 1.46 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 50 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 1.doc
306 of 465
N48°18'52"W
2.33'
N43°35'56"E
26.15'
S47°58'38"E
1.46'
S41°41'10"W
26.12'
LINDEN STREET
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
S41°41'10"W 176.45'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
ENCROACHMENT
EASEMENT
50 S.F.
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXHIBIT 1
AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:43:40 PM, 1:1
307 of 465
DESCRIPTION 2: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT
An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River
District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet
from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the
Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 158.39 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10"
West, 12.13 feet; thence, North 48° 18' 50" West, 6.00 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10"
East, 12.12 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 6.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 73 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 2.doc
308 of 465
N48°18'50"W
6.00'
N41°41'10"E
12.12'
S48°18'50"E
6.00'
S41°41'10"W
12.13'
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
LINDEN STREET
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
S41°41'10"W 158.39'
ENCROACHMENT
EASEMENT
73 S.F.
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
EXHIBIT 2
AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:44:32 PM, 1:1
309 of 465
DESCRIPTION 3: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT
An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River
District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet
from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the
Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 39.33 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10"
West, 73.63 feet; thence, North 47° 53' 17" West, 6.33 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10"
East, 10.88 feet; thence, North 41° 18' 50" West, 12.32 feet; thence, North 48° 43' 04"
East, 58.55 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 7.11 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10"
East, 3.08 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 4.28 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 971 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 3.doc
310 of 465
N47°53'17"W 6.33'
N41°41'10"E 10.88'
N41°18'50"W 12.32'
N48°43'04"E
58.55'
S48°18'50"E 7.11'
N41°41'10"E 3.08'
S48°18'50"E
4.28'
S41°41'10"W
73.63'
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
LINDEN STREET
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
S41°41'10"W
39.33'
ENCROACHMENT
EASEMENT
971 S.F.
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
EXHIBIT 3
AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:45:52 PM, 1:1
311 of 465
DESCRIPTION 4: PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
A Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement located in the Northwest
Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort
Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as
follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District
Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the
westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence, North 38° 04' 50" West, 27.72
feet; thence, North 41° 23' 02" East, 47.27 feet; thence, South 48° 03' 17" East, 28.14
feet; thence, South 25° 39' 41" East, 56.83 feet; thence, South 30° 36' 33" East, 83.64
feet; thence, South 41° 23' 53" West, 28.74 feet to the Northeasterly line of proposed
Lot 1; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 38° 04' 50" West, 135.03 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 6,534 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 4.doc
312 of 465
N38°04'50"W
27.72'
N41°23'02"E
47.27'
S48°03'17"E
28.14'
S25°39'41"E
56.83'
S30°36'33"E 83.64'
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
LINDEN STREET
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION,
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE
EASEMENT - 6,534 S.F.
S41°23'53"W
28.74'
N38°04'50"W 135.03'
S41°41'10"W
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
EXHIBIT 4
A PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT BEING A
PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69
WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:46:40 PM, 1:1
313 of 465
DESCRIPTION 5: DRAINAGE EASEMENT
A Drainage Easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River
District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet
from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the
Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1, South 38° 04' 50" East, 101.75 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING; thence, North 52° 41' 33" East, 27.50 feet; thence, South 37° 46'
35" East, 20.00 feet; thence, South 52° 41' 33" West, 27.39 feet to the Northeasterly line
of proposed Lot 1; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 38° 04' 50" West, 20.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 549 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 5.doc
314 of 465
N38°04'50"W 20.00'
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
LINDEN STREET
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
549 S.F.
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
N52°41'33"E
27.50'
S37°46'35"E
20.00'
S52°41'33"W
27.39'
S38°04'50"E 101.75'
CACHE LA
POUDRE RIVER
S41°41'10"W
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
EXHIBIT 5
A DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:47:46 PM, 1:1
315 of 465
DESCRIPTION 6: LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
A Landscape Easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River
District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet
from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the
Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1, South 38° 04' 50" East, 137.33 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING; thence, North 41° 23' 53" East, 13.09 feet; thence, South 20° 04'
16" East, 35.64 feet; thence, South 13° 16' 42" East, 16.85 feet; thence, South 29° 30'
36" East, 12.20 feet; thence, South 03° 49' 40" East, 20.38 feet; thence, South 03° 58'
09" West, 19.00 feet; thence, South 36° 50' 59" West, 10.13 feet; thence, South 01° 59'
39" West, 15.18 feet; thence, South 08° 37' 57" East, 17.53 feet; thence, South 14° 25'
44" West, 11.13 feet; thence, South 27° 42' 53" West, 11.90 feet; thence, South 57° 00'
19" West, 10.65 feet; thence, South 27° 15' 22" West, 9.52 feet to the Easterly line of
said proposed Lot 1; thence along the Easterly and Northeasterly lines of said proposed
Lot 1, North 04° 53' 10" East, 144.31 feet; thence, North 38° 04' 50" West, 28.42 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2,206 square feet, more or less.
LMS
May 24, 2013
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 6.doc
316 of 465
WESTERLY CORNER
OF BLOCK 1,
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER
N41°23'53"E 13.09'
S20°04'16"E 35.64'
S13°16'42"E 16.85'
S29°30'36"E 12.20'
S03°49'40"E 20.38'
S03°58'09"W 19.00'
S36°50'59"W 10.13'
S01°59'39"W 15.18'
S08°37'57"E 17.53'
S14°25'44"W 11.13'
S27°42'53"W 11.90'
S57°00'19"W 10.65'
S27°15'22"W 9.52'
N04°53'10"E 144.31'
N38°04'50"W 28.42'
PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1
RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK
ONE MIXED USE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
NORTHWESTERLY LINE
OF BLOCK 1
LINDEN STREET
S38°04'50"E 137.33'
LANDSCAPE
EASEMENT
2,206 S.F.
S41°41'10"W
N41°41'10"E 464.00'
S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:48:30 PM, 1:1
200 South College Avenue, Suite 010
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
N O R T H E RN
PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
EXHIBIT 6
A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO
317 of 465
EXHIBIT F
Temporary Construction Easement Area
318 of 465
EXHIBIT G
Revocable Permit Area (shaded)
319 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Aaron Iverson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-061 Approving the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis: Final Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis Final Report is the culmination of an 18-
month effort. This study has included in-depth review of existing conditions and a comprehensive development of a
variety of alternatives, ultimately resulting in recommendations for improved roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit
facilities for Harmony Road. The study was conducted with extensive public input and feedback; the Final Report is
a reflection of guidance from the community on the preferred future for Harmony Road.
The draft Final Report, along with all the technical appendices, is available for review at www.fcgov.com/harmony.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This planning effort began in December 2011, culminating with City Council considering approval on July 2, 2013. The
Harmony Road ETC Alternatives Analysis is a direct outcome of a near-term action item in Plan Fort Collins/
Transportation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in February 2011. This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is also
part of the City Council work plan. Funding for this project was approved by City Council from the voter-approved Keep
Fort Collins Great funds for the 2011-12 budget cycle. The purpose of the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is to
augment and update existing transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land
use, environmental, economic, and social needs of the corridor and to determine the most appropriate corridor
configuration.
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) provide connections between major activity centers like downtown, CSU, Midtown,
employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. While ETCs share this similar purpose, each
individual corridor will have a different, unique way to provide those connections. In some corridors, ETCs may focus
on enhancing travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline
Corridor), while other ETCs may focus on enhancing infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason Corridor and
Harmony Corridor).
The boundary of this corridor plan is Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street, as shown in
Attachment 1. An influence area one mile on either side of Harmony Road was used for understanding land use,
socioeconomic, and other contextual factors that influence the Harmony Road corridor.
The Harmony ETC addressed, at a minimum, the following items (presented in no particular order):
• Provide mobility and improved safety to/from Fort Collins via this important regional gateway;
• Create an updated master plan that supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel
to ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities;
• Recommend improvements to support local goals of integrating land-use and transportation planning, with
economic development and environmental stewardship;
• Address regional connectivity between the City of Fort Collins and regional neighbors and the I-25 corridor;
• Link major employment, education, medical campus/offices, commercial, entertainment, and residential areas
within southeast Fort Collins;
• Provide connectivity to the Mason Corridor, the future enhanced Timberline Corridor and the regional
transportation system;
• Collaborate among City staff, private sector, and surrounding communities;
• Seek citizen input to help develop transportation design options, identify funding and build partnerships; and
• Create an updated master plan that supports sustainability to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize
environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations
without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.
• Address the appearance, urban form, and the long term maintenance needs of the corridor.
320 of 465
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 29
Existing and Future Conditions
The findings of the review of existing and future travel conditions for the Harmony Corridor can be summarized as
follows:
• Harmony Corridor as we know it today is the result of numerous plans and programs throughout the years,
as well as a result of serving as Colorado State Highway 68 for nearly forty years.
• Harmony Road serves as both local commercial and residential land uses within the Harmony Corridor, but
also serves as an important regional connection to I-25 with significant thru traffic.
• Harmony Road is a wide six-lane facility (currently and planned) with large landscaped setbacks and informal
tree plantings creating campus-style settings as envisioned in the 1991 "Harmony Corridor Plan" (last
amended in 2006).
• Street design elements, such as medians, street lights and plantings have been inconsistent along the
corridor, with some of the corridor still maintaining a rural character.
• Most of Harmony Road does not incorporate any stormwater quality treatment mitigation as currently required
since it was largely constructed before these regulations went into effect. Stormwater issues are currently not
being address in a systematic way on Harmony Road.
• Traffic volumes are some of the highest in the City (just after College Avenue) ranging from over 19,000 to
almost 46,000 vehicles per day depending on location.
• Harmony Road has two intersections (Timberline and Lemay) with the highest crash totals in the City.
• The type of crashes occurring include, rear-end crashes, sideswipes, and in certain locations bicycle-related
crashes and crashes involving signs.
• Bus service is provided by three routes (route 1, 16, and 17) with average daily ridership of 1,149 for Route
1, 277 for Route 16 and 158 for Route 17.
• The design of much of Harmony Road makes the provision of safe, convenient, and efficient transit service
challenging due to long distances between signalized intersections, lack of sidewalk connections to land uses,
the lack of curb and gutter, and some physical barriers like drainage ditches.
• Harmony Road has six- to ten-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street from I-25 through the Shields Street
intersection, with a direct connection to the Mason Trail.
• Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the corridor, and most sections of the sidewalk are
detached from the roadway.
• As a result of indirect pedestrian connections, limited and long distances between signalized street crossings,
large setbacks, rights-of-way and some physical barriers like drainage ditches, crossing Harmony Road as
a pedestrian is challenging.
• The corridor is adjacent to some potential historic resources, park and recreation facilities. Any future
improvements, must consider air quality or other environmental impacts, as well as impacts to the above
mentioned facilities.
• Employment and households are going to grow within the Harmony Road corridor area in the future.
• Automobile traffic will also grow and congestion will increase along the entire corridor in the future. This
growth in traffic is due in part to Harmony’s role as a regional connector and a primary gateway in and out of
the southern part of the community.
• Harmony Road is identified as an important regional transit connection in the future, as well.
321 of 465
July 2, 2013 -3- ITEM 29
Alternatives Development
The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan included the definition, screening, and evaluation of alternatives
with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Alternatives were
evaluated based on their ability to meet the project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, environmental impacts, and
comparative costs. Screening criteria included a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures directly tied to
the Project Vision/Goals and Objectives. Figure 1 shows the alternative development process.
Figure 1. Alternative Development Process
Tier 1 alternatives were developed based on information from the Corridor Understanding, the established goals and
objectives and public input. Tier 1 alternatives were intended to be broad and capture a wide range of ideas. The
range of Tier 1 alternatives included:
• No action, keep conditions as currently exist
• Enhance the current bus service within the existing roadway
• Convert the outside travel lane into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane, taking away one automobile travel lane
in each direction.
• Construct a BRT lane within the median, requiring the loss of one automobile travel lane in each direction
• Turn the outside travel lane into a BRT lane combined with a High Occupancy Vehicle lane, taking away one
automobile travel lane in each direction.
• Add a BRT lane to the outside of the existing roadway, widening the corridor and keeping three automobile
travel lanes in each direction.
• Add a BRT lane within the median but widening the entire corridor to keep three automobile travel lanes in
each direction.
• Combine the above transit and roadway improvements with bike lanes, shared use paths or protected bicycle
facilities like a buffered bike lane.
• Combine any of the alternatives with bicycle/pedestrian overpasses or underpasses at strategic locations.
• Combine any of the alternatives with intersection improvements
The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and quantitative comparison between corridor alternatives and
against the No Action Alternative. Interdepartmental and agency coordination, as well as public involvement, played
322 of 465
July 2, 2013 -4- ITEM 29
a major role in this process. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was involved in each step of the evaluation
process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA.
Locally Preferred Alternative
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC), extending from
Shields Street to I-25, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the project Purpose
and Need, which is:
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance
mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional
travel needs, land uses, economic health and environmental stewardship goals
Roadway Improvements
The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the full length of corridor. The LPA includes widening the final section
of Harmony to six lanes from Boardwalk Avenue to College Avenue. The ultimate widening of Timberline to six lanes
from Harmony north is also included. Additionally several intersection improvements were identified to address future
operational deficiencies, these include:
• Dual protected north and southbound left turn lanes at Boardwalk and Harmony
• Channelized southbound to westbound free right at Timberline and Harmony
• East and northbound right turn lanes at Ziegler Road and Harmony
• Channelized westbound to northbound free right at Ziegler Road and Harmony
• Eastbound right turn lane at Lady Moon and Harmony
Transit Improvements
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Express Bus along Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer Center and
the South Transit Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route except
where queue jumps are provided. Queue jumps are dedicated lanes at the intersections allowing a bus to maneuver
around the main stack of traffic so that when the signal light turns green the bus is at the front of the queue. The LPA
includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Ziegler.
Service along Harmony would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods,
with stops provided approximately every 1/2 mile (locations to be determined through the LPA refinement process).
Transit service along Harmony Road between Front Range Community College and College Avenue would be
provided by the Route 19.
Bicycle Improvements
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes, including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from College
Avenue east to I-25. Additionally, many of the sidewalks parallel to Harmony Road have been built as multi-use paths
that are 8 to10 feet wide. Staff recommends that this parallel system be extended along the length of Harmony Road,
to facilitate travel by bicyclists who do not feel comfortable riding on the street.
Pedestrian Improvements
The existing meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony, with completion of the few missing
segments. The LPA also includes enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian crossing (both at-grade and grade
separated). Key grade separations that have been identified as high priority are at the crossing of the Power Trail and
the crossing of the Mason Trail.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The cost of the LPA for Harmony Road, which includes all modes and all recommendations, is approximately $53
million. Certain project elements may be installed in phases over several segments, without completing all design
elements in that segment. Project costs are summarized below in the four main travel mode categories:
323 of 465
July 2, 2013 -5- ITEM 29
1. Roadway: $16.8 million (includes design and construction)
2. Transit: $17.7 million (includes design, construction and buses)
3. Bike: $248,200 (includes design and striping)
4. Pedestrian: $18.1 million (includes design, construction and grade separations)
Staff will pursue potential local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities to complete these important, long-
term investments for Harmony Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A cursory level environmental inventory of existing conditions and a preliminary assessment of the project impacts was
conducted for the for the Harmony Road ETC study area. The level of analysis performed for this project is
commensurate with the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Alternatives Analysis.
The LPA is expected to increase total miles of travel in the corridor by approximately 5 percent over No Action, but
to the positive, corridor crossing time would decrease by approximately 13 percent and average corridor vehicle
speeds would increase by approximately 17 percent. These improvements should reduce tailpipe emissions on the
whole.
Transit ridership is expected to increase from about 600 daily boardings currently to over 2,000 estimated daily
boardings. The improved transit, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities will result in a mode shift. On Harmony
Road, with a projected 50,000 vehicles per day even a small shift away from an auto trip can make a big difference.
For every 1% (or 500 trips) shifted from a car to transit, bicycling or walking on a daily basis, that adds up to over
900,000 vehicle miles saved over a year (based on an average 5 mile trip).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented information related to the Harmony Road ETC to the following boards:
Transportation Board: July 18, 2012; March 20, 2013; June 19, 2013. At its June 19, 2013 meeting, the
Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Plan.
Bicycle Advisory Committee: July 9, 2012; May 6, 2013. The Committee generally supported the recommendations
of the LPA and viewed the buffered bike lanes as an improvement over the existing bike lanes.
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session: May 10, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Board generally supported
the recommendations of the LPA.
Air Quality Advisory Board: May 20, 2013. The Air Quality Advisory Board had numerous questions about the
impact of the project on air quality. On one hand the Board felt improving traffic flow had the most potential to improve
mobile emissions, while there was also a strong advocacy for increasing mode shift to transit, bicycling and walking
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Board agreed to provide a brief, bulleted document with ideas regarding air
quality issues in this project.
City Council Work Session: October 23, 2012
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project. See Attachment
2 for a list of the outreach completed during the project.
324 of 465
July 2, 2013 -6- ITEM 29
Technical Advisory Committee
This process included on-going coordination among multiple City departments, and various interested community and
corridor stakeholders in the form of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC met six times over the course
of the project providing guidance and feedback at key decision points. The TAC helped guide the development of the
alternatives, vetted the recommendations which ultimately became the Locally Preferred Alternative presented in the
Final Report.
Public Meetings and Outreach
Public meetings were held on May 3, 2012, September 13, 2012, and May 1, 2013 to actively engage the corridor
property owners, businesses, residents, and general public in the process. The meetings were conducted as part of
the public review process for the alternatives screening process and to help determine the preferred corridor
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Study Corridor and Influence Area
2. Public Outreach Summary
3. City Council Work session summary, October 23, 2012
4. Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board
minutes
5. PowerPoint Presentation
325 of 465
FC Moves
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 1: Study Corridor and Influence Area
326 of 465
FC Moves
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 2: Public Outreach Summary
327 of 465
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Appendix C
Public Input
328 of 465
C‐1
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Summary of Public Input – 1st Round of Public Involvement – May
2012
The first public meeting was held at the Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church on Harmony on May 3rd from 4:00
– 7:00 PM. The format of the meeting was an open house, with four stations: 1) Education, 2)
Identification of Issues (Problems), 3) Corridor Visions (Solutions), and 4) Survey (Trade Offs). While the
attendance was somewhat light, the input received was good. The City distributed flyers and sent
messages through Facebook and Twitter to direct people to the online survey, which was be open
through the end of May. The survey received 254 responses.
The following issues were identified at the public meeting:
Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making
People frequently jaywalk
Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure
Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street
Transit service does not go to Transfer Center
Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars
The responses to the multiple choice online survey questions are charted on the following pages. A
summary of the corresponding comments follows the applicable charts. The themes that were most
common to the survey responses are listed below, in the general order of response frequency:
Separate bikes from travel lanes (buffer)
Provide a balance between different modes/provide travel options
6 general purpose travel lanes are needed
Support for landscaped median
Support for dedicated bus lane
Improve pedestrian crossings and/or provide grade separated crossings
Support for detached sidewalks
Maintain wide setbacks/open feel
Accommodate bikes on both sides
329 of 465
C‐2
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
330 of 465
C‐3
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
331 of 465
C‐4
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Traffic/Congestion
Signal timing – (19)
Too many traffic signals – (5)
Travel speeds slow/less than posted – (3)
Congestion at railroad crossings – (1)
Volume of traffic – (1)
Configuration
Transition from 3 to 2 lanes; should be 3 the whole way – (8)
Confusing – lane ends, merges, etc – (3)
Too few turn lanes at access points – (3)
Too many lanes – (2)
Too many access points – (1)
Bicycle
Safety issues at intersections for bicyclists – (6)
Not appropriate for/comfortable for bikes – (6)
Lack of bike underpass/overpass – (3)
Inconsistent bike lane configuration (shifting), not well marked – (3)
Bike lane/right turn conflict approaching intersections – (2)
Bikes are a hazard, remove – (2)
Too much traffic for bicyclists to turn left – (1)
Pedestrian
Missing sidewalk – (2)
Safety issues at intersections for pedestrians – (1)
Poor environment for pedestrians/not inviting – (1)
Transit
Buses block travel lane (especially at stop near RR tracks) – (2)
Wait time for bus service too long – (1)
Maintenance
Condition of road (Boardwalk to College, most notably) – (3)
Construction ongoing – (3)
Snow piled up in bike lane and sidewalk – (1)
332 of 465
C‐5
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Condition of bike lanes (pot holes) – (1)
Other
No concerns, it works well – (4)
Noise – (1)
Current land uses not bicycle and pedestrian friendly – (1)
333 of 465
C‐6
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
334 of 465
C‐7
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Other Destinations:
Medical facilities – (4)
MAX – (2)
Connections to other E/W and N/S bus arterials (GRID) – (2)
Libraries – (2)
Hughes Stadium – (1)
Timberline Road – (1)
Avago – (1)
Front Range Village – (1)
Senior Center – (1)
Denver – (1)
Work – (1)
Larimer County Detention Center – (1)
Schools – (1)
335 of 465
C‐8
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the detached sidewalks – (22)
Good for bikes – (19)
Good for auto – (12)
Like the wide setbacks – (7)
Aesthetically pleasing – (6)
Like 3 travel lanes on Harmony – (6)
Each mode has its own space – (6)
Like the green space – (2)
336 of 465
C‐9
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Lane use appears understandable (user friendly) – (2)
Like the access control – (2)
Good for snow plowing – (1)
Auto is predominant mode – embrace – (1)
Realistic – (1)
Negative Comments
Too much emphasis on autos, freeway feel – (25)
Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (24)
Prefer separated bike lanes – (14)
Unattractive (especially depressed median) – (10)
Prefer a dedicated bus lane – (7)
Concern about pedestrian/transit users ability to cross the street – (6)
Not environmentally responsible/sustainable – (5)
Regressive/Proven to be ineffective – (5)
No “life” on the street, needs urban amenities, sense of community – (5)
Not good for pedestrians, shopping/residential too separated – (5)
Bikes should be routed to other streets – (4)
Bikes should be moved to the sidewalk (shared use path) – (4)
Unfair to non-drivers – (4)
Poor business access – (3)
Add landscaping in median – (2)
Depressed median seems unsafe – (2)
Encourages unhealthy mode of transportation – (1)
Buildings set back too far – (1)
Needs more dense land use to encourage other modes – (1)
Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
337 of 465
C‐10
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the landscaped median – (42)
Like the increased emphasis on bus – (17)
Aesthetically pleasing – (14)
Like the detached sidewalks – (12)
Like the wide setbacks – (7)
Like the dedicated bike lane – (6)
Good for bikes – (6)
338 of 465
C‐11
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Good for auto – (4)
Friendly, vibrant – (3)
Good for pedestrians – (2)
Each mode has its own space – (1)
Negative Comments
Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (19)
Too expensive to implement and maintain (especially landscape median) – (11)
Prefer separated bike lanes – (9)
Concern about pedestrians crossing wide intersections – (6)
Visibility limited by over-landscaping – (6)
Too much emphasis on autos – (5)
Do not anticipate much bus ridership – (5)
Too wide, too many lanes, too much traffic – (4)
Not good for pedestrians (and transit users), shopping/residential too separated – (3)
Dislike the bus’s interference with traffic flow – (3)
Need more bike and ped friendly facilities – (3)
Wide median is wasted space – (3)
Prefer dedicated bus lane – (3)
Prefer grade separated pedestrian crossing – (3)
Bus/bike conflict – (3)
Difficult for bikes to turn left – (3)
Higher densities needed to support transit – (2)
Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
Regressive – (1)
Bus service is not as important as traffic flow – (1)
Seems too crowded – (1)
Raised median safer with 3 lanes – (1)
Add green bike boxes – (1)
Buses need designated pull outs – (1)
339 of 465
C‐12
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the dedicated bus lanes – (41)
Like the separated cycle tracks – (37)
Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (13)
Improves safety for cyclists – (11)
Good multimodal options – (10)
Like the detached sidewalks – (6)
Like the landscaped median – (5)
Like HOVs using bus lane – (4)
340 of 465
C‐13
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bus lane provides an extra buffer between cyclists and auto – (4)
More environmentally friendly – (3)
Like the less costly median – (2)
Aesthetically pleasing – (2)
Negative Comments
Too wide, too much traffic – (21)
Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (13)
Very difficult for pedestrians to cross – (11)
Concern about bus/right turn conflict – (8)
Concern about cycle track treatment at intersection – (7)
Not aesthetically compelling – (7)
Too much going on – (6)
More protection needed for bikes – (4)
Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
Cycle tracks should be two-way – (3)
Difficult for cyclists to make left turns – (3)
Confusing for out of town visitors – (3)
Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
Expensive – (1)
Concern about bus signal priority and driver confusion – (1)
If HOV, bus stop/HOV conflict – (1)
Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
Bus pull outs from GP lanes instead – (1)
Not human friendly – (1)
Would like to see roundabouts – (1)
Over-designed – (1)
No improvement over existing – (1)
Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
Don’t need 6 lanes with separate bus lane – (1)
Dislike raised median – (1)
341 of 465
C‐14
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the median BRT – (18)
Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (17)
Like the downtown/community feel/minimal setback – (9)
Encourages alternative travel modes – (8)
Like the two-way cycle track – (8)
Like the bikes being separated from traffic – (7)
Improves safety for cyclists – (6)
Good multimodal options – (5)
342 of 465
C‐15
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Pedestrian friendly – (5)
Like having only 4 auto lanes – (4)
Like that it is less of an “asphalt jungle” – (3)
Traffic speeds would be slow (favorable) – (3)
Looks efficient/compact – (3)
Better for businesses – (2)
Would serve commuters well – (1)
More environmentally friendly – (1)
Negative Comments
Lacks needed auto capacity – (35)
Too cramped/too urban/big city – (16)
Bikes should be on both sides – (16)
Buildings too close to road – (16)
Too congested – (15)
Concern about how pedestrians would cross from station – (15)
Dislike the two-way cycle track – (11)
Not appropriate for Harmony – (6)
Not aesthetically compelling/no median landscaping – (4)
Concern for safety on two-way cycle track (esp at intersections and accesses) – (3)
Pedestrians too close to street, unpleasant – (3)
Concern median BRT would require more signals – (3)
Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
Too much emphasis on bus – (3)
Concern about buses passing each other – (2)
Dislike the bus in the median – (1)
No room for expansion – (1)
Concern about snow storage – (1)
Concern about safety for left turners – (1)
Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (1)
Median BRT would confuse drivers – (1)
Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
343 of 465
C‐16
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Summary of Public Input – 2nd Round of Public Involvement –
September 2012
The second public meeting was held at the Harmony Library on September 13th, 2012 from 4:00 – 7:00
PM. The format of the meeting was an open house at which the preliminary Tier 1 alternatives and
screen results were presented along with descriptions of alternatives recommended for further
evaluation in Tier 2. While the attendance was somewhat light, the input received was good. The City
distributed flyers and sent messages through Facebook and Twitter to direct people to the online
survey, which was be open through mid‐October. The survey received 126 responses. The following is a
summary of the public input from the open house and the subsequent online survey.
1. What is your gender?
Value Count Percent
Female 57 45.20%
Male 69 54.80%
2. Which category below includes your
age?
Value Count Percent
17 or younger 2 1.60%
18-20 3 2.40%
21-29 22 17.90%
30-39 45 36.60%
40-49 28 22.80%
50-59 22 17.90%
60-69 1 0.80%
70-79 0 0.00%
80+ 0 0.00%
3. What is your approximate average
household income?
Value Count Percent
$0-$24,999 7 5.80%
$25,000-$49,999 18 14.90%
$50,000-$74,999 31 25.60%
$75,000-$99,999 22 18.20%
$100,000-$124,999 25 20.70%
$125,000-$149,999 6 5.00%
$150,000-$174,999 5 4.10%
$175,000-$199,999 3 2.50%
$200,000 and up 4 3.30%
344 of 465
C‐17
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
4. Which Zip Code do you live in?
Value Count Percent
80521 13 10.20%
80524 5 3.90%
80525 37 29.10%
80526 50 39.40%
80528 17 13.40%
Other (please specify) 5 3.90%
5. Do you like the idea of a bus-only
lane on Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Yes 24 20.00%
No 44 36.70%
Not Sure 34 28.30%
Why or why not? 18 15.00%
Use bus priority shared lane at peak times
Not that many buses on harmony
I still want to have 3 lanes for cars, but it would be great to see more bus pull-offs. A corridor similar to what
they're building along Mason would be great to see in 10-20 years.
Not enough buses to warrant an entire lane just for them
Busses do not run frequently enough to justify this
Construction would be a pain and SE Fort Collins has been hit hard.
I think only the 16 runs that route and it is once in the half hour. See my response to #10. If there are
multiple busses, there should be a bus lane.
encourage alt trans.
Would like to see how a bus lane integrates with a bike lane.
NO - Because of two lane restriction at RR crossing west of Timberline
Not enough bus riders to warrant, Harmony is already extremely congested, would only work if you ADDED
an additional lane which isn't economically or environmentally sound.
No, I don’t see busses causing many problems with Harmony traffic
Is there really enough bus traffic to warrant their own lane??
No, because it's too congested as it is. To squeeze normal traffic from three lanes down to two would make
it much worse.
Only if bus service will increase, offering cont svc length of rd, 7d svc & evening svc
I have not seen significant enough bus traffic or congestion outside of "rush hours" to warrant an entire lane
dedicated to bus-only. Our resources could be spent on solutions that offer more "all day" benefits.
Seems like it would be better to have turn lanes for better traffics flow
345 of 465
C‐18
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
not enough room
6. Do you like the idea of a restricted lane for cars with
two or more people on Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Yes 18 15.00%
No 72 60.00%
Not Sure 13 10.80%
Why or why not? 17 14.20%
I am not sure how it would affect overall traffic flow. But it would be great to see less single-occupant cars
around town.
These lanes make sense in long stretches of controlled-access highway (I25 in Denver), but in urban arterial
streets they seem to be more trouble than they are worth, I.E. Santa Fe in Denver, IMO they don't work well
there.
Construction would be a pain and SE Fort Collins has been hit hard.
won't be enforced
encourage car pooling
I think it would be great, but ultimately it would be more efficient to have a train or a bus-only lane.
NO- Because of two lane restriction at RR crossing west of Timberline
seems hard to enforce
Again, Harmony is far too congested to start limiting lanes.
No, most drivers are commuting and not car pooling. There would be few cars with 2+ people.
Too confusing ESP to out of towners.
Is there really a NEED for a carpool lane? Or is this a feel good idea??
No. While I like this idea on the Interstate, I don't think the concept would work well on an arterial; it's just
not long enough of a stretch of road to work effectively.
If combined with bus lane. Not sure useful as most cars on harmony have 2+
Possibly, but I am not aware of statistics that demonstrate this will improve traffic flow on Harmony.
not enough room
7. How should bicyclists be accommodated on
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Bike lanes (existing) 22 18.50%
Bike lanes with a striped buffer 22 18.50%
Bike lanes with a landscaped barrier 60 50.40%
Shared use paths (for bikes and pedestrians), next to, but away from the
road 57 47.90%
Bikes should be on a parallel street, not on Harmony Road 8 6.70%
Other (please specify) 3 2.50%
346 of 465
C‐19
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
also emphasize alternative routes
I've never thought about bike lanes with a landscaped barrier, but that would make me feel safer as well as
be aesthetically pleasing...but it would be very time and money intensive, so maybe just bike lanes.
As an avid cyclist, I use my bicycles for recreation and transportation on a daily basis. I STRONGLY
support the Fort Collins cycling community and increasing bike-specific routes to encourage increased
bicycle transportation and encourage safety.
8. How should pedestrians be accommodated on
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Meandering sidewalks set away from the street (existing on much of the
corridor) 85 72.00%
Shared-use paths (for bikes and pedestrians), next to, but away from the road 59 50.00%
Other (please specify) 2 1.70%
minimally - the patterns out there don't encourage walking/ even if you build a pretty meandering sidewalk,
few will use it.
Light rail
9. What would make crossing Harmony Road on foot or by
bike easier?
Value Count Percent
More signing and/or more time for pedestrians to cross at signalized
intersections 39 35.80%
More places to cross (please tell us where in the next question) 17 15.60%
Underpass or overpass crossings (please tell us where in the next
question) 66 60.60%
Where? 39 35.80%
Front Range Village, Harmony & Timberline Area (Grade Separated [GS])
Harmony and Timberline (at grade improvements)
Lemay, Timberline (GS)
Power Trail (GS)
Shields, Boardwalk, McMurry (GS)
Timberline, Lemay, College (GS)
Half way between intersections maybe. I don't travel Harmony enough to visualize exact locations. (GS)
Trail connectors (GS)
Underpass at Timberline/Power Trail, College and Shields/Mason Trail (GS)
Power Trail!!!!!!! Underpass would be nice, but a grade crossing would be a big improvement
Lemay, Timberline, Bus depot on East end (either)
347 of 465
C‐20
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Wherever convenient for construction. (GS)
Timberline, Lemay, College, Shields (GS)
Power trail (GS)
Harmony House, bus stops (GS)
On busy streets (either)
near McMurry, near Snow Mesa, near FRCC (GS)
College, Timberline (GS)
major intersections along the corridor (GS)
Timberline, LeMay, College (GS)
at least near the trail near mcmurry (GS)
Lemay (GS)
At S College (GS)
would love to see additional underpasses such as the one that connects Spring Canyon Park to Cathy
Fromme Prairy, where existing grading would provide a feasible environment to do so. Additionally, I
believe pedestrian/bike only overpasses can be constructed in a very aesthetically pleasing manner, and
would be a great asset to Fort Collins bike routes. These would be ideal on the Mason trail where it crosses
Harmony, Horsetooth, Drake, and Prospect. I think this would be particularly beneficial for Prospect road as
much of the traffic from Mason trail is diverted onto Spring Creek Trail/Centre Ave. for people using it to
access the CSU campus.
Corbett and lady moon (GS)
Mason Bike Path, Timberline (GS)
Timberline and Boardwalk (GS)
mason near the railroad tracks (GS)
Lemay, Mason (GS)
It would be great to have a bicycle overpass/underpass for the powerline trail (GS)
power line trail (GS)
All bus stops (either)
Between Snow Mesa & Timberline; Gifford Ct (GS)
More time, but this may cause delays in traffic if they are waiting for pedestrians, so "pedestrian only"
periods might be a good alternative. (at grade improvements)
major streets – (GS)
Lemay, Timberline and Corbin (GS)
348 of 465
C‐21
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
10. How should bus service be improved along
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
No improvement needed, maintain the existing bus service 23 22.80%
More frequent bus stops 18 17.80%
Faster service 21 20.80%
Bus stops that are easier to get to 19 18.80%
One bus route all the way along Harmony Road 40 39.60%
One bus route connecting Harmony Road to downtown Fort
Collins 35 34.70%
A bus only (or bus/carpool only) lane 15 14.90%
Other (please specify) 12 11.90%
Multiple bus routes from other sections of town.
Bus ridership data would be interesting to see if any improvement needed at all.
more bus connections that make service easier to access rather than having to go to CSU campus for every
connection
Evening & weekend service
As MAX comes online, would be interested in service along Harmony that specifically connects to Mason.
11. Which alternative do you prefer for the west segment
(Shields to College)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
1a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 10 8.80%
Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 56 49.10%
Enhanced Transit and Shared Use Path 48 42.10%
12. Which alternative do you prefer for the central segment
(College to Ziegler)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
4a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 11 9.70%
5. Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 43 37.70%
6. BRT in HOV Lane and Cycle Track 24 21.10%
7. BRT in HOV Lane and Shared Use Path 36 31.60%
13. Which alternative do you prefer for the east segment
(Ziegler to I-25)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
4a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 22 19.50%
5. Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 37 32.70%
6. BRT in HOV Lane and Cycle Track 21 18.60%
7. BRT in HOV Lane and Shared Use Path 33 29.20%
349 of 465
FC Moves
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 3: City Council Work session summary, October 23, 2012
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2013
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Mark Jackson, Budget, Policy and Communications Manager
FROM: Aaron Iverson, Interim Transportation Planning Director
RE: OCTOBER 23, 2012 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – HARMONY ROAD
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben Manvel,
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Karen Cumbo, Bruce Hendee, Mark Jackson, Aaron Iverson, and
Jenny Young (FHU consultants)
Discussion Summary
How would transit service tie into the Mason Corridor (MAX)
Make sure the study addresses the transfer station at I-25 as a hub for regional transit service
Several council members expressed concern about pedestrian accommodation on Harmony and that
it’s difficult to cross; there are clusters of pedestrians in certain activity centers along the corridor, but
people generally only walk short distances (e.g., to a very nearby store)
The land uses are not conducive to walking (large buildings, far away from street and from each other)
– what can/should be done in the future to prevent this problem from occurring as
development/redevelopment occurs; may want to consider identification of district identities as a next
step to clearly define campus vs. ped focused land uses
Why has growth in traffic along the corridor been so flat for the last decade?
Harmony as the premier gateway to Fort Collins
Follow-up Items:
Council would like follow up on crash rates subsequent to corridor improvements
The term “integrate sustainability” is not strong enough (the other goals use “improve” or “enhance”)
– sustainability needs to be on par with the other goals; consider stating sustainability element overtly
(prior to goals)
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Harmony Road project with the City Council and received
valuable feedback and direction for the project. For more information regarding the project, please visit:
http://www.fcgov.com/harmony
ATTACHMENT 3
350 of 465
FC Moves
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 4: Summary of Board and Commission Meetings
ATTACHMENT 4
351 of 465
Garry W. Steen, Chair
Transportation Board
June 22, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers:
RE: Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis Final Report
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the final report for the Harmony Road ETC
Alternatives Analysis to the Transportation Board on June 19th. This is the culmination of an 18 month
analysis resulting in a Locally Preferred Alternative blueprint for multimodal improvements to this high
volume corridor that serves south Fort Collins and the region. The Transportation Board has been
updated frequently on the analysis alternatives process over the 18 months, providing input along with
the outreach from a variety of other venues, public, technical teams, boards & commissions, as well as
City Council.
The Final Report identifies opportunities to improve transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel as well as
roadway improvements that will “support local and regional travel needs, land uses, economic health
and environmental stewardship goals”.
Discussion involved clarification on transit improvements and functionality, pedestrian perception and
safety, costs of the improvements, and timeline to achieve the improvements. A funding strategy is a
concern, especially given the benefits that the improvements would provide on a timely basis.
Appreciation for the vision and goals included in the report were expressed to staff, especially for the
complexity and comprehensive inclusiveness of the report. A motion was made to support the plan,
which passed unanimously.
As always, I would be happy to discuss this further at your convenience.
Thank You
352 of 465
2
June 19 , 2013 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
June 19, 2013
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Mary Atchison 217.9213
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Deputy Director, PDT, 416.2029
Mary Atchison, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Pat Jordan Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Manager, 224.6140
Eric Shenk Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, 416.2643
Sara Frazier Megan Bolin, Redevelopment Specialist, 221.6342
Sid Simonson Emma McArdle, Transit Planner, 224.6197
Clint Skutchan
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Olga Duvall Eric Rollins, Citizen, 970.988.6408
Kevin O’Toole
Councilmember Ross Cunniff
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:00p without a quorum. The meeting was formally
called to order with a quorum at 6:07p when Sid Simonson joined the group.
8. ACTION ITEMS
A. Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis: Final Report – Aaron Iverson,
Senior Transportation Planner
Iverson: I am seeking a recommendation to Council on the Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis.
Preferred Alternative: Widen Harmony from Boardwalk to College Avenue to 6 lanes with
intersection improvements. Enhanced bus service with queue jumps at major intersections,
increased frequency with improved bus plazas; Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or
353 of 465
3
underpasses and improve crossings at signalized intersections; Buffer bike lanes along detached
multi-use paths.
Boardwalk, Timberline, Ziegler, Lady Moon will need intersection improvements. Transit
improvements will be necessary in the same area. The Harmony Route runs every 20 minutes.
It could be configured to be a “one seat ride” to downtown. Larger bus plazas are proposed at ½
mile intervals. Bus queues give buses priority and provide timing benefits. There are currently
bike lanes the entire length of Harmony Road. We are suggesting buffered bike lanes from
College Avenue to I-25. They can be done with or without green paint and provide a higher
level of comfort for cyclists. Developers will be encouraged/required to build sidewalks to
wider specifications. The Mason Trail and the Power Trail are identified as two locations for
potential over/underpasses. We also want to improve intersections that have pedestrian refuges
and add them to those that don’t have them.
Simonson: How many intersections are you considering adding bus queues?
Iverson: Three high volume intersections were identified; Timberline, Ziegler, and Lemay.
There are a few slivers of right-of-way that need to be acquired. With 20-minute bus spacing,
buses won’t stack up in the queue.
Atchison: Are there identified funding schemes and/or a timeline?
Iverson: We have a timeline identified. The total cost is $53-million (approximately $10-
million per mile). We staged the timeline to be in line for FTA funding, Tiger Grants, etc.
Jordan moved that the Transportation Board send a letter in support of the Plan. Frazier
seconded the motion.
Discussion: Concerns about costs, pedestrians crossing Harmony north/south, and bus function
during the construction were expressed.
The motion was passed unanimously.
354 of 465
4
March 20 , 2013 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
March 20, 2013
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Mary Atchison 217.9213
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Deputy Director, PDT, 416.2029
Mary Atchison, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Olga Duvall Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer, 221.6566
Eric Shenk Aaron Iverson, Interim FC Moves Manager, 221.2643
Sid Simonson Dean Klingner, Civil Engineer, 221.6511
Kevin O’Toole
Pat Jordan
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Sara Frazier Mike Angstadt, CSU Graduate Student, 518.225.5564
Clint Skutchan
Councilmember Ben Manvel
2. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:00p with a quorum present
B. Harmony Road ETC – Aaron Iverson, Interim FC Moves Manager
Iverson: Harmony Road is similar in many ways to the North College project. We were looking
at alternatives last July when I came to the Board. Tonight I will show you our preferred
alternative.
355 of 465
5
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that
enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Harmony Road was a farm road in the 1950s. It became a State Highway in 1968, connecting I-
25 to College Avenue. The City took it back from the State in 2005. In the last 5 – 8 years we
have spent nearly $25 million on the corridor to widen it from I-25 to Boardwalk and make
other improvements as far west as Taft Hill Road. We still have parts of it to complete. Growth
projections are out to 2035, and show significant growth in traffic, which has nearly doubled in
the last 10 years. Harmony is classified as “congested” in peak hours from Timberline to 287. It
is projected to be classified as “congested” from east of Shields Street to I-25 in the future.
There are 3 bus routes serving Harmony Road. Bus stops need improvements. Walking
conditions are fairly good throughout the corridor with grassy areas separating sidewalks from
traffic. There are bike lanes the entire length of the corridor, however, with the high speeds and
volumes, many cyclists use the sidewalks instead.
We held two open houses, spoke to businesses along the corridor, and had online surveys to get
opinions. Congestion was the #1 concern, followed by travel options, safety issues, etc.
Locally Preferred Alternative: Enhanced Bus Alternative
Roadway & Intersection Improvements – finish widening from Boardwalk to College (6 lanes)
and College to Shields (4 lanes). Improve 4 intersections (Lemay, Timberline, Ziegler, Lady
Moon)
Transit improvements – institute a Harmony Route that runs every 20 minutes between the
Harmony Transit Center and the South Transit Center.
Bus Plazas will be built, which are not full stations like MAX, but are improvements over
existing bus stops…landing points.
Queue jumps will allow buses to stop in their own lane and jump ahead with an early light to
get ahead of stacked traffic.
Bicycle improvements – buffered bike lanes are separated from traffic lanes with a minimum 3’
painted buffer area. Part of the bike lane will be used to create the buffer zones.
Pedestrian improvements – underpasses/overpasses will be installed where possible (Mason
Trail, Power Trail). Improve crossings at signalized intersections, with pedestrian refuges
where possible.
Next steps:
Conduct final public outreach
Develop conceptual cost estimates
Develop implementation plan (phasing and funding)
Complete ETC Master Plan report
City Council for adoption this summer
Project website: fcgov.com/harmony
O’Toole: How much of Timberline Road will be 6-lane?
Jackson: It is shown in the Master Street Plan to be 6-lane to Prospect Road.
O’Toole: Widening these roads to 6-lanes is a major impediment to people trying to cross them
in any way other than a car.
356 of 465
6
Iverson: The challenge is to enhance this corridor for alternative modes without having to
deconstruct and reconstruct it.
Jackson: Another interesting aspect of the 6-lane footprint is whether they should include
dedicated lanes for transit/through traffic.
Simonson: I like most of the aspects you’ve shown, although I’m unconvinced about the bus
jump queue.
Atchison: It is challenging to be a pedestrian on Harmony. Crossing on bikes is challenging.
Have those crossings been timed for people with disabilities, seniors, etc. to make it to the
island in the middle?
Jordan: I can cross to the median at the Target quite easily, although there are some crossings I
won’t attempt. For those I take the bus and hit them on the return trip. It’s really pretty easy.
Iverson: Pedestrian signals alter the flow due to timing changes allowing longer crossings.
Jackson: As our population ages, the timing needs to change. It takes time from the “through”
on Harmony to allow for north/south pedestrian crossings, trains, emergency vehicles, etc.
Generally speaking, the flows work well, but it doesn’t take much to make it “burp.” Note:
That is a technical term.
Atchison: Is there a Harmony Business Group that you are working with? What is their
reaction?
Iverson: We have spoken with various businesses. They would like to be able to access transit,
the Harmony Poudre Valley Hospital Campus, restaurants, etc. so are supportive of plans that
support those desires.
Steen: I am intrigued by the queue jumps. Are there cities using them now?
Iverson: Yes, it is a proven technique. I didn’t bring examples from other cities. They have a
separate signal that allows them to go before other stacked traffic.
357 of 465
7
May 10, 2013 Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (Draft Notes)
MEETING MINUTES OF
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 6, 2013
6:00 p.m.
Community Room
215 N. Mason St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Sylvia Cranmer 970-493-5277
Staff Liaison: Molly North 970-224-6112
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Downtown Development Authority:
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-op: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Libby Harrow
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board:
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Joe Piesman
Parks and Recreation Board:
Colorado State University: Joy Childress
Transportation Board: Garry Steen
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
AT LARGE PRESENT
Dee Colombini
Michael Hinterberg
ABSENT
At large: Dan Gould
Economic Advisory Commission: Jim Clark
Poudre School District: MacKenzie Mushel
Senior Advisory Board: Ellen Lirley
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT
Molly North, Interim Bicycle Coordinator
Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Program Manager
CITIZENS PRESENT
358 of 465
8
Michele Dunlop, Minute Taker
Mike Knowles, Citizen
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. with a quorum present by Chair Sylvia Cranmer.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following changes to the minutes of the meeting of March 11, 2013 were proposed:
Credit Molly North with inviting members of the Committee to the City of Fort Collins APB webinar.
Designate Garry Steen as Chair of the Transportation Board, rather than Interim Chair.
The March minutes were approved as amended on a motion from Michael Lynn, seconded by Libby Harrow, with all in
favor.
FOLLOW UP FROM PRIOR MEETING/FUTURE BUSINESS
Chair Sylvia Cranmer reintroduced discussion of the Idaho Bike Law, to be addressed later in the meeting. Tim Anderson
commented on a bicycle traffic issue going north on College, where the bike lane narrows at a new bridge, and advised
members of the Committee to be aware of a potential crisscross.
ACTION ITEMS
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
HARMONY CORRIDOR PROJECT
Aaron Iverson, FC Moves Senior Transportation Planner, gave a presentation on the upcoming Harmony Corridor Project,
scheduled for City Council review on July 2, 2013. The Harmony Corridor study is a long range alternative analysis that
looks at Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street. Harmony Road is an enhanced travel corridor, with
access to commercial and residential development and connections between major destinations. The purpose of the project
is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road
Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses, economic health and environmental
stewardship goals. FC Moves has investigated a broad range of ideas to improve Harmony Road not only as a huge
commercial corridor, but also as a regional corridor connecting College to the interstate.
Proposed improvements to the Harmony Road Corridor include:
Widening Harmony Road to six lanes (from Boardwalk to College).
Intersection improvements at: Boardwalk, Timberline, Ziegler and Lady Moon.
Enhanced bus service from the Harmony Transit Center to the South Transit Center, with fewer transfers, more
frequent service, stops at a minimum of every ½ mile, bus plazas and queue jumps. FC Moves anticipates as many
as 1400 riders a day on Harmony with these improvements. Aside from the South Transit Center, FC Moves is not
proposing any park-and-rides at this time.
Buffered bike lanes (a six ft. bike lane with a striped, painted three ft. buffer between traffic) in addition to
existing multi-use paths.
359 of 465
9
Connecting sidewalks, “pedestrian pork chops” at intersections, median refuges, and expanded over/under passes
at key locations. Over time, FC Moves plans to slow traffic and mature the landscape, so Harmony Road is more
comfortable for pedestrians. Harmony Road still struggles with the legacy of having been a state highway.
After completing an overview of the Harmony Corridor Project, Aaron Iverson opened the discussion up to questions from
the Committee. Mr. Iverson confirmed that closure of Harmony Road would take place at the end of May or early June, but
that the City of Fort Collins is still waiting on an exact date from the railroad. As soon as dates are finalized, they will be
made available to the public.
MAX
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort General Manager, gave a presentation on MAX. MAX is the first Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) service on the Front Range and a spine and hub for future transit service in Fort
Collins and the region. BRT combines the efficiencies of rail service with the flexibilities of bus
service to add capacity and accessibility to very constrained facilities. With streamlined fare collection
and boarding and dedicated guideways, BRT provides rapid transportation down congested corridors.
Twenty years from now, when the travel time on College Avenue is diminished, travel time on MAX
will still be the same.
MAX features some of the following improvements to transit:
Passengers prepay for tickets and passes. Conductors will come by periodically to check
tickets.
Dual-loading platform stations are elevated to provide level boarding. When the doors open,
every type of user will be able to board quickly. Bicyclists and users with mobility devices or
wheelchairs will have the option of boarding without operator assistance.
Stations also feature bike parking, passenger waiting areas, ticket vending machines, digital
signage and audible announcements. Users may also take advantage of a mobile app for
passenger information.
A dedicated guideway begins south of Harmony Road, travels north to Horsetooth Avenue,
enters back onto a dedicated roadway through campus, to University Avenue, and finally enters
onto the existing Mason Street Corridor.
Stations are spaced every ½ mile. Users will have the option to park-and-ride at the South
Transit Center, Troutman, Horsetooth, Swallow, Drake and the Spring Creek Station. The
southern stretch of the corridor features close to 450 parking locations.
Buses will look more like light rail, and will offer free Wi-Fi to passengers.
MAX will operate from 5:30 AM – midnight (Monday-Saturday), with a regular fare of $1.25.
At peak frequency (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), MAX buses will come by every 10 minutes. At off-peak,
buses will come every 15 minutes, and from 9 PM to midnight, every 30 minutes.
MAX offers multiple discounted pass options. Users under the age of 17 will be able to ride for
free, thanks to the generosity of the Bohemian Foundation. Full fee paying Colorado State
University students also ride free. Users who purchase a fare for MAX will be able to transfer
without paying an additional fee.
Construction on MAX is about 45% complete, with three main components: the guideway and stations,
the new South Transit Center (with a dedicated park-and-ride lot), and the expansion of the Trilby
maintenance facility to accommodate 60-ft vehicles. Construction also includes an underpass at
360 of 465
10
Troutman and an overpass as the Spring Creek Station. MAX is scheduled to come online in May
2014. Although Transfort does not have the additional resources to enhance the transit system outside
of MAX, it is planning a realignment of services to provide east-west feeder connectivity into the
MAX line (with optimal 30 minute service frequency). MAX is scheduled to come online in May
2014, with the possibility of a three month fare-free incentive period.
Kurt Ravenschlag closed with goals for coping with construction: keep businesses open and accessible,
minimize road closures and major travel delays, and keep the public informed via weekly updates. The
last major facility closure was on Prospect Road, which re-opened a week ahead of schedule. After the
month of June, there will be no more full roadway closures.
Afterwards, Mr. Ravenschlag opened the discussion up to questions from the Committee. Libby
Harrow inquired if bike parking would consist of more than a bike rack. Kurt explained that Transfort
has a multiple approach to dealing with bike parking. Initially, only bike racks will be available. The
South Transit Center features about 44 covered stalls. However, Transfort is looking at adding bike
cages in key locations, particularly at transit centers. Colorado State University is also interested in
adding a bike cage on campus.
Dee Colombini raised a question about transporting riders from the west side of College Avenue to the
east side, with businesses set 80 ft. back from the roadway. Kurt answered that Transfort is actively
pursuing a solution with the mall developers for an underpass at College, as well as looking at
opportunities to provide transit connections between that station and the mall (with 30 minute service
frequency). As redevelopment begins to orient around the MAX line, providing connections between
key locations will be a priority.
361 of 465
11
May 20, 2013 Air Quality Advisory Board‐ (Draft Notes)
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 20, 2013
DATE: Monday, May 20, 2013
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Community Room
TIME: 5:30 – 8:30 p.m.
For Reference: Greg McMaster, Chair 484-3348
Ross Cunniff , Council Liaison 420-7398
Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison 221-6813
Present: Michael Lynn, Scott Groen, Dave Dietrich, John Shenot, Rich Fisher, Nancy York, Tom
Moore, Greg McMaster, Jim Dennison
Absent: none
Staff Present: Melissa Hovey, Alexis Hmielak, Brian Woodruff, Alan Iverson
Guests: Councilperson Ross Cunniff
Public Comments:
Call meeting to order: Rich Fisher called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
Harmony Rd. Transit Improvement Project
Aaron Iverson, Sr. Transportation Planner, presented information on the Harmony Road Alternatives
Analysis.
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance
mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. As the city grows, vehicle congestion in this
area needs to be addressed. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental stewardship goals.
The project will be Harmony from I-25 to Shields.
Harmony Road was previously a state highway that was taken back as a city street in 2005. This
project will help to accommodate land uses for local traffic, bicycles and pedestrians that currently do
not exist on Harmony Road.
The Proposed Locally Preferred Alternative would address:
o Roadway and intersection improvements
Widen Harmony (Boardwalk to College) to 6 lanes and intersection improvements.
o Transit improvements
Enhanced bus service with increased frequency, queue jumps at major intersections, and
improved bus plazas
o Bicycle facilities
Buffered bike lanes with green marking, along with detached multi-use paths.
362 of 465
12
o Pedestrian facilities.
Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or underpasses and improve crossings at
signalized intersections
Next Steps
o Conduct final public outreach
o Develop conceptual cost estimates
o Develop implementation plan (phasing and funding)
o Complete ETC master Plan report
o Take to City Council this summer for adoption
Discussion:
Are there any safety issues with queue bus lanes for bicyclists crossing this many lanes of traffic?
(There is already a right turn lane and the light would help keep buses from encountering bikes. A
buffered bike lane would improve safety for cyclists. They also want to foster an off-street system.)
Is keeping traffic flowing with as few starts and stops as possible part of your plan? That would help
reduce emissions. It would also be helpful to have someone from Traffic Operations visit the AQAB to
explain traffic’s effects on air quality.(Traffic Operations has been involved in the planning but that is
not explicitly addressed.)
Will there be any separated grade vehicle railroad crossings? (There will be only one at Trilby.)
Will you finish Horsetooth east to Strauss Cabin? (It is under consideration because there is a potential
housing development there.)
I suggest you not look at Harmony road in isolation. Also look at Carpenter Road because the more
Harmony gets congested, people would use Carpenter Road as an alternative. (Carpenter Road is a
state highway. The City is not currently considering taking it over like they did Harmony Road. The
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is also studying installing commuter rail line from
Denver up I-25.)
I suggest phasing in these changes and building the bike/pedestrian/transit segment before widening
Harmony Road. This would work on alternative transportation first to relieve congestion; then widen
the road. (The question is funding.)
Fort Collins does not meet EPA health standards for air quality. It is important you solve transportation
problems with air quality as part of your decision making so what you do doesn’t make air quality
worse.
Is air quality being considered in your planning? (Yes. We looked it at a high level of impacts of each
alternative, mostly regarding reduction of vehicle miles travelled.)
This would be a good time to think beyond internal combustion engines and encourage electric vehicle
use in this area.
Building additional lanes of traffic will accommodate more vehicles. I don’t think we can build our
way out of this and am concerned the focus is not on ways to reduce VMTs and improve air quality.
AQAB agreed to provide Aaron Iverson a brief, bulleted document with ideas your group can respond
to regarding air quality issues in this project. Michael Lynn volunteered to compile this document.
363 of 465
2
City Council
July 2, 2013
slide
Direction Sought
This purpose of this action item is to
seek approval from City Council on the
Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor ETC
Alternatives Analysis.
2
ATTACHMENT 5
364 of 465
3
slide
PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purpose of the project is to
implement multi-modal transportation
improvements that enhance mobility and
safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Improvements will support local and
regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental
stewardship goals.
3
slide
4
365 of 465
4
slide
Existing Bus Stop
5
slide
Walking Conditions on Harmony Road
6
366 of 465
5
slide
7
slide
Locally Preferred Alternative
Widen Harmony (Boardwalk to College) to 6 Lanes &
Intersection improvements
Enhanced bus service with queue jumps at
major intersections, increased frequency with
improved bus plazas
Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or
underpasses and improve crossings at signalized
intersections
Buffered bike lanes with green marking, along with
detached multi-use paths
Bus
Bike
Walk
Road
8
367 of 465
6
slide
Widen College to 6 lanes
Widen Timberline to 6 lanes
Improve intersections with turn lanes
Widen Harmony to 6 lanes
9
slide
Harmony Rd.
Timberline
Lemay
College
Shields
Ziegler
Horsetooth
Boardwalk
Lady Moon
South Transit Center
Harmony
Transfer Center
Harmony Route
Runs every 20 minutes
10
368 of 465
7
slide
11
slide
12
369 of 465
8
slide
San Francisco Seattle
13
slide
14
370 of 465
9
slide
15
slide
Direction Sought
This purpose of this action item is to
seek approval from City Council on the
Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor ETC
Alternatives Analysis.
16
371 of 465
RESOLUTION 2013-061
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE HARMONY ROAD ENHANCED TRAVEL
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT
WHEREAS, for the past 18 months, City staff and City consultants have been engaged in the
process of preparing the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (HTC) Alternatives Analysis
Final Report; and
WHEREAS, the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report includes an in-depth review of
existing conditions and a comprehensive development of a variety of alternatives which ultimately
resulted in recommendations for improved roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities for the
Harmony Road Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the HTC Master Plan is to augment and update existing
transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land use,
environmental, economic, and social needs of the Harmony Road Corridor and to determine the most
appropriate configuration for the Harmony Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the HTC Alternatives Analysis includes recommendations for updates to the
HTC Master Plan which supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel to
ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, the financial impacts of the HTC Alternatives Analysis will be pursued by City
staff through local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities in the future; and
WHEREAS, from an environmental impact analysis perspective, the HTC Alternatives
Analysis shows an increase in transit ridership as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities which are
anticipated to result in a transportation mode shift for the environmental benefit of the Corridor; and
WHEREAS, after significant public outreach and receipt of favorable recommendations from
the Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the Planning and Zoning Board, with
a mixed recommendation from the Air Quality Advisory Board, the City Council has determined that
the approval of the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report dated June 14, 2013, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved.
372 of 465
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July, A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
373 of 465
Harmony Road
Alternatives Analysis
ENHANCED
TRAVEL
CORRIDOR
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
June 14, 2013
submitted by: in association with:
Harmony Road ETC Master Plan
FINAL DRAFT
EXHIBIT A
374 of 465
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
303/721‐1440
In association with:
Nelson\Nygaard
BHA Design Incorporated
FHU Reference No. 11‐184‐01
June 14, 2013
375 of 465
i
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Corridor Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Corridor Context ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Planning and Outreach Process ............................................................................................... 5
2. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Problem Statements and Travel Needs ........................................................................................................ 8
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 15
3. Alternatives Development and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 16
Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 16
No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 18
Tier 1 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................ 22
Tier 1 Evaluation and Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 22
Tier 2 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................ 26
Tier 2 Evaluation and Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 28
4. Locally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................. 37
LPA Decision Process .................................................................................................................................. 37
LPA Description .......................................................................................................................................... 38
LPA Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................ 54
5. Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 56
Phasing Options .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Implementation Considerations ................................................................................................................. 59
Recommended Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................ 61
Funding Strategies ...................................................................................................................................... 63
Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 65
376 of 465
ii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Planning Process ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Transit Boardings and Alightings .................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Traffic Forecasts and V/C Ratios (Existing and 2035 No Action) .................................................... 20
Figure 6. Harmony Corridor Segment Characteristics ................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. 2035 Traffic Forecasts for Tier 2 Alternatives ................................................................................ 29
Figure 8. 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 9. 2035 PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times .................................................................................... 30
Figure 10. 2035 Average Daily Transit Boardings ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 11. Average Transfers per Transit Trip ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12. 2035 PM Peak Hour Averages Speeds ............................................................................................ 32
Figure 13. Roadway Widening and Intersection Improvements ..................................................................... 39
Figure 14. Illustrative Example of LPA: Shields Street to College Avenue ...................................................... 39
Figure 15. Illustrative Example of LPA: College Avenue to I‐25 ...................................................................... 40
Figure 16. LPA Transit Routes .......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 17. Illustrative of Queue Jump Lanes at Intersection ........................................................................... 43
Figure 18. Harmony Road Bus Stop and Station Locations ............................................................................. 45
Figure 19. Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments ..................... 48
Figure 20. Pedestrian Grade‐Separated Crossing Locations ........................................................................... 48
Figure 21. LPA 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations ................................................................................... 49
Figure 22. LPA Typical Mid‐Block Cross‐Sections ............................................................................................ 54
List of Tables
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Tier 1 Modal Elements ................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3. Summary of Elements Eliminated in Tier 1 .................................................................................... 25
Table 4. Tier 2 Alternatives1 ......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 5. Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................ 36
Table 6. Summary Project Costs by Travel Mode ........................................................................................ 55
Table 7. Potential Sequencing and Costs by Corridor Segment (Excluding Bus Costs) ................................ 57
Table 8. Recommended Implementation Plan ............................................................................................ 61
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Existing Conditions
Appendix B. PEL Questionnaire
Appendix C. Public Input
Appendix D. Land Uses and Demographics
Appendix E. Transportation Analysis
Appendix F. Environmental Inventory and Evaluation
Appendix G. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluation Matrices
Appendix H. LPA Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates
377 of 465
iii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Acknowledgements
City Council
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Bob Overbeck
Lisa Poppaw
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff
Gerry Horak
Transportation Advisory Board
Garry Steen, Chair
Mary Atchinson
Olga Duvall
Sara Frazier
Rita Pat Jordan
Kevin O'Toole
Eric Shenk
Sid Simonson
Clint Skutchan
Project Management Team
Aaron Iverson, Project Manager, FC Moves Senior Transportation Planner
Amy Lewin, FC Moves Transportation Planner
Emma McArdle, Transfort
Technical Advisory Committee
City of Fort Collins
Megan Bolin, Economic Health
Tim Kemp, Engineering
Craig Foreman, Parks Planning
Bruce Hendee, City Manager’s Office
Aaron Iverson, FC Moves
Amy Lewin, FC Moves
Karen Manci, Natural Areas
Clark Mapes, Planning Services
Emma McArdle, Transfort
Darren Moritz, Streets
Joe Olson, Traffic Operations
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort
Glen Schlueter, Utilities
Ted Shepard, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
378 of 465
iv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Other Agencies
Kristin Kirkpatrick, University of Colorado Health Systems
Suzette Mallette, North Front Range MPO
Larry Squires, Federal Transit Administration
Martina Wilkinson, Larimer County
Town of Timnath
Consultant Team
Holly Buck, Project Manager, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Jenny Young, Deputy Project Manager, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Rich Follmer, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Geoff Slater, Nelson\Nygaard
Angela Milewski, BHA Design
379 of 465
v
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Executive Summary
The City of Fort Collins conducted this study on Harmony Road to establish existing conditions, to identify future
transportation challenges (using the year 2035 as a planning horizon), and to create a vision that will serve as a
blueprint for multimodal improvements in the corridor. The study developed a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) for multimodal transportation improvements along the 5 ½ mile corridor and presents a plan for
implementation and funding of those improvements.
Harmony Road Context
Harmony Road is one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) in Fort Collins that are “planned to incorporate
high frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as part of the corridor.” The Harmony Road ETC extends from
Shields Street to I‐25 and includes a variety of cross‐sections, land use characteristics, and travel patterns.
Harmony Road was named after the agricultural community named “Harmony” established in the area in the
1870s. Remains of the community still exist at the Harmony Road/Timberline Road intersection where the
buildings from the original Harmony Store and the Harmony School still stand.
Today, Harmony Road is an important regional connection; Harmony road is the first Fort Collins exit traveling
from the south on I‐25. Harmony Road is considered one of the best ways into and out of Fort Collins, and with
the limited number of I‐25 exits, a large amount of regional traffic is funneled to Harmony Road. Harmony Road
is one of the primary commercial corridors in Fort Collins and houses several large employment campuses
including Hewlett Packard, Avago, and Intel. The University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus is also a
prominent land use adjacent to Harmony Road. As a primary commercial corridor serving all of Fort Collins and
also as a regional destination, pressures on Harmony Road are significant. Both local and regional trips and will
continue to grow into the future; the future of Harmony Road corridor is tied to the future of Fort Collins and
the region.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to implement multimodal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and
safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental stewardship goals.
380 of 465
vi
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Improvements are needed to address the following transportation problems:
The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous
Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable
Pedestrian crossings are typically spaced a half‐mile apart
Traffic congestion is expected to increase due to growth in
population and employment along Harmony Road and the
surrounding area
The existing cross‐section does not accommodate potential
mixed‐use transit‐oriented development
Connections between modes to destinations along the
corridor are lacking
Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest
crash totals in the City
Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe
pedestrian crossing points
Harmony Road does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
The four goals of the project reflect the need to address the
transportation problems and are consistent with the City of Fort
Collins’ vision for the future. These goals are the foundation for
the evaluation criteria used to assess and compare improvement
alternatives.
Planning Process
The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan has been developed in a manner consistent with the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA’s) Alternatives Analysis (AA) study process. As described in the FTA’s Framework for
Alternatives Analysis, during an AA study process
“…the priority corridor identified in systems planning is
studied in detail, focusing on the effects of alternative
solutions to the corridor’s transportation problems.
Information on costs, benefits, and impacts of each
alternative is developed to provide a sound technical
basis for project decision making.”
The planning process was guided by a Project
Management Team (PMT), which is composed of two
FC Moves transportation planners and a Transfort
transit planner. The PMT and consultant team held
monthly or semi‐monthly conference calls throughout
the planning process to discuss findings and
preliminary recommendations and to prepare for
meetings with the larger Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC, which included individuals from
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Residential growth within the Harmony Road
study area is expected to increase 42 percent, and
employment is expected to increase 71 percent.
381 of 465
vii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
various City Departments, FTA, and adjacent jurisdictions) and public outreach efforts.
A variety of public outreach activities were designed and conducted to solicit input from residents, business
owners, employees, and travelers of the Harmony Road corridor and from the community at large. In addition to
the Harmony Road ETC public meetings, several other outreach mechanisms were successfully used to
disseminate information about the project and to receive input throughout the planning process:
Virtual public open houses – information from the public meetings was posted on the project website
along with electronic questionnaires which received over 350 responses in total (between two
questionnaires)
Presentations to City Boards and City Council
Booths at City events and other public meetings
Stakeholder meetings with neighborhood groups, business associations, and major employers
Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The fundamental philosophy in the
screening process was to
systematically identify the positive and
negative characteristics and tradeoffs
among alternatives resulting ultimately
in a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
The alternatives development process
began with the development of 18
corridor‐wide elements including a
broad range of improvements by travel
mode (four roadway, five transit, six
bicycle, and six pedestrian) that were
identified as having potential address
the project needs.
In the Tier 1 evaluation and screening
process, the alternatives were
evaluated at a high level for fatal flaws
and their ability to address the Purpose and Need.
Given that no single element would necessarily address all of the project needs as a stand‐alone improvement,
the intent of identifying these elements by mode was to combine elements together as part of packaged
alternatives in Tier 2. The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and quantitative comparison between
corridor alternatives and against the No Action Alternative. Inter‐departmental and agency coordination, as well
as public involvement, played a major role in this process. The TAC was involved in each step of the evaluation
process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA.
382 of 465
viii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 1 Cross-Sectional Elements
Travel Mode Element
Roadway 2 General Purpose Lanes per direction
3 General Purpose Lanes per direction
4 General Purpose Lanes per direction
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Transit
Local Bus in Mixed Traffic
Enhanced Bus with Transit Priority Treatments
(queue jumps and/or transit signal priority)
Curbside Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Median BRT
Light Rail/Streetcar
Bicycle Bike Lanes (shoulder)
Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike/Bus Lanes
Shared Use Paths
Cycle Tracks
Back Street Bike Lanes
Pedestrian Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks
Shared Use Paths
Crossing Enhancements at Signalized Intersections
Grade Separated Crossings
Criteria for evaluating alternatives were established to respond directly to the project’s Purpose and Need and
its goals and objectives. The criteria were developed to be appropriate for the evaluation level being conducted
and the alternatives being considered. The responsiveness of each alternative to the criteria determined
whether or not the alternative was reasonable and if it should be advanced for further evaluation. Elements that
best responded to the Purpose and Need and resulted in the best evaluation included:
Roadway: 2 General Purpose lanes per direction from Shields Street to College Avenue; 3 General
Purpose lanes per direction from College Avenue to I‐25, with spot intersection improvements
• Would provide traffic operational benefits without major ROW acquisition
Transit: Enhanced Bus service with queue jumps at congested intersections
• Would provide the best compromise of increasing transit ridership while retaining acceptable
traffic operations
Bicycle: Bike Lanes from Shields Street to College Avenue; Buffered Bike Lanes from College Avenue to
I‐25
• Would provide the best compromise between ROW and drainage/maintenance impacts and
mode shift potential
383 of 465
ix
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Pedestrian: Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks, crossing enhancements at intersections, and grade
separated crossings
• Would continue to provide a separate space for pedestrians along the corridor, and would
improve the safety and level of comfort for pedestrians crossing Harmony Road
Locally Preferred Alternative
The LPA for the Harmony Road ETC, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the
project Purpose and Need. The LPA includes widening the section of Harmony from College Avenue to
Boardwalk Avenue to six lanes, as well as intersection improvements at selected locations to address future
operational deficiencies.
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Enhanced Bus along Harmony Road between the South Transit Center and
the Harmony Transfer Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route
except where queue jumps are provided.
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from
College Avenue east toward I‐25. The meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony Road,
with completion of the few missing segments. The LPA will also include enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian
crossings (both at‐grade and grade separated crossings). The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the entire
length of the corridor.
Illustrative Example of LPA from College Avenue to I-25
384 of 465
x
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Roadway Elements
In general, the LPA makes use of the existing roadway infrastructure without major capital
expansion. It includes widening a short segment (College Avenue to Boardwalk Drive) to six
lanes to better accommodate future travel demands, which is consistent with the City’s
Transportation Master Plan.
Two widening projects which are anticipated within the planning horizon will affect Harmony
Road. College Avenue is planned for widening to six lanes south of Harmony Road which will require
reconfiguration at the Harmony Road intersection to extend three northbound and southbound lanes through
the intersection. Likewise, the Timberline Road intersection will require similar geometric modifications to allow
six through lanes in the north/south direction. Timberline Road is expected to transition to four lanes south of
the Harmony Road intersection. Although these two widening projects are not a part of the LPA, the intersection
modifications to accommodate these projects are considered part of the LPA.
The LPA also includes intersection
improvements at four locations along the
corridor to address future operational
deficiencies and to enhance safety for
automobile travel along the corridor. Four
intersections identified for improvements
include:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
In addition to the widening and intersection improvements, the LPA includes urban design elements to provide
consistent aesthesis along the length of the corridor. It includes landscaped medians and curb and gutter
throughout the corridor.
Transit Elements
The LPA includes a new 4 ½ mile Enhanced Bus route along Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer
Center and the South Transit Center. The route would begin at the Harmony Transfer Center, north of Harmony
Road and to the west of I‐25. It would travel west along Harmony Road stopping on demand at bus stops and
stations located approximately every ¼ mile along the corridor. At College Avenue the bus would turn south to
access the South Transit Center and connect to the planned MAX service that is currently under construction.
Route H would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods.
To the west of College Avenue, Harmony Road would be served by the existing Route 19 connecting the South
Transit Center, Front Range Community College and the CSU Transit Center. Route H would connect with the
Route 17 at Timberline Road and with Route 7 at John F. Kennedy Parkway.
385 of 465
xi
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The LPA also includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road:
Lemay Avenue
Timberline Road
Ziegler Road
Buses using the queue jump and right turning vehicles cross the buffered bike lane as they approach the
intersection; right turning vehicles travel around the right turn channelization island while approaching buses
continue straight. With a green indication buses travel through the intersection concurrently with the other
through travel lanes to a receiving lane on the far side of the intersection and to the bus stop.
386 of 465
xii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Enhanced transit stations
provide a comfortable and
safe respite location for
transit riders to gather while
anticipating the arrival of the
next bus. The intent is to
provide shelter, seating, bike
parking, waste and recycling
collection, and relevant
information regarding the
transit system (e.g., maps
and time of next bus arrival).
Transit stations are located
at key nodes in the transit
system and serve as
gathering places for users. These include locations such as major employers, the hospital, and schools. Stations
will be larger than a typical bus stop and provide more amenities.
Bicycle Elements
The LPA includes enhanced bicycle facilities along the full length of the
Harmony Road corridor. East of College Avenue, a buffered bike lane
will provide a visual separation and greater space between the
motorized travel lane and the bike. The buffered bike lanes will also
provide space for a bicyclist to pass another bicyclist, and generally
appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users.
As a part of the LPA
refinement process, the
use of colored pavement
was identified as a desired
treatment for the bike lanes along the full length of Harmony Road
(Shields Street to I‐25).
Pedestrian Elements
Harmony Road is identified in the City’s Pedestrian Plan as a Pedestrian Priority Area (PPA). The
LPA seeks to enhance the pedestrian experience along the Harmony Road corridor by providing
continuous sidewalk connections along the length of the corridor (Shields Street to I‐25) and
improving the crossing opportunities along the corridor. The LPA includes completion of the
missing sidewalk segments that exist in several locations along the corridor.
Example of a green bike lane in San Francisco
387 of 465
xiii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Crossing of Harmony Road has been identified as problematic by the community, and it will become more
difficult as traffic volumes increase in the future. All signalized intersections along the corridor should include at‐
grade crossing treatments to enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians (and bicyclists).
Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
In addition to the at‐grade intersection crossing enhancements, six locations for future grade‐separated
crossings have been identified and are included in the LPA. These crossings are recommended periodically along
the corridor to connect land uses north and south of Harmony Road, to facilitate access to transit stations, and
to reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts along the corridor.
Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing Locations
Implementation
The improvements needed to realize the LPA likely cannot be constructed at the same time. As such, an
implementation plan has been developed to minimize throw‐away costs, expedite high priority improvements,
and advance the capital projects needed to begin enhanced bus service. The City should leverage themselves as
388 of 465
xiv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
well as private development when possible with development projects along the corridor to take full advantage
of other construction activities and magnitudes of scale.
The following table summarizes the recommended implementation plan in Immediate, Short‐Term and Long‐
Range timeframes. A description of the plan element, the responsible party, and the approximate cost for the
individual elements are included for each of these timeframes.
Recommended Implementation Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Immediate Improvements
LPA Design
Complete the design of vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle elements
Conduct environmental resource inventory; develop
mitigation plans for impacted areas
Identify ROW impacts; prepare ROW plans; start
ROW acquisition process
Identify public and private utility conflicts; prepare
modification plans
Engineering with
Consultant
Assistance
$3.50M
(8% of estimated total
project cost)
Finalize the Operating Plan & Determine Vehicle Type
and other Requirements
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
staff
Create a Transit‐Oriented Development Overlay District
FC Moves/
Planning Services
Completed by FC Moves
& Planning Services staffs
Revise corridor striping to create the bike lane buffer;
install green epoxy paint in bike lanes
Engineering $0.24M
Construct missing sidewalks and neighborhood
connections
Engineering $0.61M
Construct landscaped medians Engineering $6.47M
Construct Mason Trail and Power Trail pedestrian grade‐
separations
Engineering $5.52M
Short‐Term Improvements
Identify and Secure Funding for Vehicle Procurement;
Begin Process to Procure Vehicles
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Develop Enhanced Bus Operating Schedules and Begin
Public Information Program
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Reconstruct the Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road
(including realignment of Harmony Road to the south),
xv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Construct the Bus Stations and Bus Stops Engineering $4.02M
Finalize and Implement the Marketing Plan for the
Enhanced Bus Service
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Purchase necessary buses Transfort $2.51M
Begin Enhanced Bus Service
Long‐Range Improvements
Construct remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements
sequentially in a west to east manner. Major design
elements would include:
Roadway widening or narrower to match the
LPA cross‐sections (including irrigation ditch
enclosures where needed)
Intersection capacity improvements including
channelizing islands
Traffic signal modifications
Drainage modifications or new systems
Utility modifications
Engineering $9.47M
Construct remaining pedestrian grade‐separations at:
Between Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue
Adjacent University of Colorado Health
Harmony Campus
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
Harmony Transfer Center
Engineering $11.04M
390 of 465
1
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
1. Introduction
Harmony Road is one of the six Enhanced
Travel Corridors (ETCs) identified in the Fort
Collins Transportation Master Plan (2011).
ETCs are defined as “uniquely designed
corridors that are planned to incorporate high
frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as
part of the corridor.” Harmony Road crosses
two other ETC’s: Mason and Timberline
Road/Power Trail. Construction of the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (MAX) line is
underway and will bring high frequency transit
service across Harmony Road, with the BRT
line terminating at the South Transit Center,
just south of Harmony Road. Building on the
momentum of the Mason Corridor, the City
has identified Harmony Road as the next ETC
for multimodal improvements.
Harmony Road is also identified by the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (NFRMPO) as a Regionally
Significant Corridor (RSC) which is defined in
the NFR 2035 Regional Transportation Plan
Update as “An important link in a multimodal,
regional network comprised of existing or new
transportation corridors that connect
communities and/or activity centers by facilitating the timely and safe movement of people, goods, information,
and services.” Harmony Road’s designations as an ETC and RSC establish the importance of the corridor for both
local and regional travel.
This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan was conducted by the City of Fort Collins to create a vision that will serve as
a blueprint for future multimodal transportation improvements along the corridor. This report presents the
results of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study which was conducted to assess existing conditions, identify future
challenges (using the year 2035 planning horizon), and identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for
implementation.
Corridor Study Area
The Harmony Road ETC extends from Shields Street to I‐25; and the study area for the Harmony Road ETC
Alternatives Analysis includes a one mile buffer around this segment (see Figure 1). Harmony Road’s cross‐
section and character vary and three distinct segments have been identified for the purpose of alternatives
development and evaluation. These segments are described below.
Harmony Road is one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors in Fort Collins.
391 of 465
2
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 1. Study Area
392 of 465
3
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
West Segment (Shields Street to College
Avenue)
The westernmost segment of the corridor has four through
lanes with a painted median. The primary adjoining land
use is residential, with houses backing to Harmony Road.
Front Range Community College is located in the southeast
quadrant of Harmony Road and Shields Street. The Mason
Corridor (including impending MAX BRT service and the
existing Mason Trail) cross this segment of Harmony Road,
as does the BNSF Railroad. The planned South Transit
Center is located approximately one‐third mile south of
Harmony Road adjacent to the Mason Corridor.
Central Segment (College Avenue to Ziegler Road)
While the entire central segment of the corridor is planned
for six lanes, only the segment between Boardwalk Drive
and Ziegler Road is currently six lanes with a raised median.
Widening for the remaining section (College Avenue to
Boardwalk Drive) is unfunded, however.
The urban design character of the central segment generally
follows the recommendations from the Harmony Corridor
Plan with large landscaped setbacks and informal tree
plantings. Some areas along this segment have redeveloped
into new activity centers that front the corridor, such as
near the Snow Mesa Drive intersection. Newer urban design
infrastructure improvements have been completed at the
College Avenue/Harmony Road intersection. Land uses along
the central segment are typically suburban‐style commercial development with some residential neighborhoods
backing to Harmony Road. The University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus is a prominent land use on the
south side of Harmony Road, east of Timberline Road. This segment includes the UPRR crossing and a future
Power Trail crossing just west of Timberline Road.
East Segment (Ziegler Road to I-25)
The eastern segment of the corridor has six travel lanes with
a depressed grassy median, providing a more rural feel. Most
of the land along this stretch is undeveloped farmlands or
natural areas. However, three large employment campuses
(Hewlett Packard, Avago, and Intel) are located near the
intersection of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. This segment
has the highest potential for household and employment
growth.
Central Segment
East Segment
West Segment
393 of 465
4
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Corridor Context
Corridor History
Harmony Road owes its name to the agricultural community
named “Harmony” established in the 1870s. The community
of Harmony was centered on what is now the intersection of
Harmony Road and Timberline Road. Remains of the
community can still be seen at the intersection where the
buildings from the original Harmony Store and the Harmony
School still stand. To the west of Timberline Road is the
Harmony Cemetery. Harmony was a farming community with
crops such as grasses, wheat, corn, barley, oats, and timothy.
Harmony Road remained a rural
agricultural road until the late 1950s and
early 1960s with the construction of I‐25.
By 1965, I‐25 connected New Mexico and
Wyoming through Colorado from
Walsenburg to Wellington. In about 1968 Harmony Road became a state highway
connecting I‐25 to US
287 (College Avenue) and was designated
as State Highway 68 (SH 68).
Subsequently, the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) developed
Harmony Road into a divided highway
with a wide grass median/swale that also
acted as a drainage feature from US 287
to just west of I‐25. The width of the
roadway and rights‐of‐way set the tone
for a higher speed, limited access
roadway; a big difference from any other
arterial street in the City. In 2005 CDOT
returned all of SH 68 to the City of Fort Collins.
Regional and Citywide Importance
Harmony Road is an important regional connection. Traveling from the south on I‐25, Harmony Road is the first
Fort Collins exit; the next Fort Collins exit is Prospect Road three miles to the north. The nearest exit to the south
is State Highway 392 (the Windsor exit) which is also three miles away. Harmony Road as a six lane arterial is
considered one of the best ways into and out of Fort Collins, and with the limited number of I‐25 exits, a large
amount of regional traffic is funneled to Harmony Road. Harmony Road also connects to the Town of Timnath,
immediately to the east of I‐25. Timnath is a small but rapidly growing community with land use plans that add
an extensive number of new households. Timnath has also seen major employment develop along Harmony
Road with a large Super Walmart located just to the east of the I‐25 and Harmony interchange.
Harmony Road and College Avenue are the primary commercial corridors for Fort Collins. As a primary
commercial corridor serving all of Fort Collins and also as a regional destination, pressures on Harmony Road are
significant. It also serves both local and regional trips and will continue to grow into the future; the future of
Harmony Corridor is tied to the future of Fort Collins and the region.
The Harmony School on the northeast corner of
Harmony Road and Timberline Road is a designated Fort
Collins Landmark. The original school house was built in
1878 and the larger masonry school building was built in
1931.
394 of 465
5
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A variety of plans have been completed by the City of Fort Collins and other agencies that address
transportation, access, and other issues along Harmony Road. Appendix A lists these plans and provides a brief
description of their relevance to the Harmony Road corridor. A description of the near term projects that will
affect the Harmony Road corridor are also included in Appendix A.
Overview of Planning and Outreach Process
The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan has been developed in a manner
consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s)
Alternatives Analysis (AA) study process. As described in the FTA’s
Framework for Alternatives Analysis, during an AA study process
“…the priority corridor identified in systems planning is studied in
detail, focusing on the effects of alternative solutions to the
corridor’s transportation problems. Information on costs, benefits,
and impacts of each alternative is developed to provide a sound
technical basis for project decision making.” The AA study process, as
well as the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Planning and
Environmental Linkages (PEL) process can be considered precursors
to the environmental review process required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PEL process is intended to
improve and streamline the environmental process for
transportation projects by conducting corridor planning activities prior to the start of the NEPA process.
Although this ETC Master Plan is not considered a PEL, several NEPA process principles were followed and the
FHWA PEL questionnaire was completed and is included in Appendix B.
As shown on Figure 2, the Harmony Road ETC planning process
began in January 2012 and took approximately 18 months to
complete. The process diagram below shows the key tasks,
milestones, and meetings.
Coordination with several City departments and neighboring
agencies as well as input from the public was important
throughout the planning process.
The planning process was guided by a Project Management Team
(PMT), which is composed of two FC Moves transportation
planners and a Transfort transit planner. The PMT and consultant
team held monthly or semi‐monthly conference calls throughout
the planning process to discuss findings and preliminary
recommendations and to prepare for meetings with the larger
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and public outreach efforts.
Coordination with other Fort Collins staff and with neighboring
agencies largely occurred through the TAC. The TAC met six times
from March 2012 through the conclusion of the study to provide
input about the analysis of technical data for the City’s decision
making purposes.
The following NEPA process principles
were followed for this study:
Preparation of a purpose and
need statement
Evaluation of alternatives and
identification of a Locally
Preferred Alternative
Identification of potential
environmental impacts and
conceptual mitigation
strategies
Public involvement
The TAC included representatives from the
following City departments:
FC Moves
Transfort
Advance Planning
6
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 2. Planning Process
396 of 465
7
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A variety of public outreach
activities were designed and
conducted for the study to
solicit input from residents,
business owners, employees,
and travelers of the Harmony
Road corridor and from the
community at large. Two
public meetings were held for
the project:
The focus of the May
3, 2012 public meeting
was to present
existing conditions,
future growth
projections, and
transportation needs,
and to receive public
input and feedback on current traveling conditions and on ideas for improvements
The results of the Tier 1 Alternatives Development and Evaluation (as described in Chapter 3) were
presented at the September 13, 2012 public meeting, along with recommendations for alternatives to
be moved forward for further evaluation in Tier 2. Attendees provided input on the initial screening
recommendations
In addition to the Harmony Road ETC public meetings, several
other outreach mechanisms were successfully used to
disseminate information about the project and to receive input
throughout the planning process:
Virtual public open houses – information from the
public meetings was posted on the project website
along with electronic questionnaires which received
over 350 responses in total (between two
questionnaires)
Presentations to City Boards and City Council
Booths at City events and other public meetings
Stakeholder meetings with neighborhood groups,
business associations, and major employers
Others (Aaron)
A more detailed description of public outreach efforts and
public input is included in Appendix C.
This “Word Cloud” shows the words that were most
frequently included in public comments. Words that
occurred more frequently are given greater prominence.
397 of 465
8
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
2. Purpose and Need
A critical part of the Alternatives Analysis process is the development of a Purpose and Need statement and
articulation of goals and objectives of the project. The Purpose and Need statement is a key factor in
determining the range of promising alternatives and to guide the development of criteria for evaluating the
alternatives. This chapter documents the project Purpose and Need, transportation problem statements, goals,
and project objectives which were developed during a workshop with the TAC and were refined based on input
from the public.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the project is to implement multimodal transportation
improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony
Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel
needs, land uses, economic health and environmental stewardship
goals.
Problem Statements and Travel Needs
The following sections summarize the identified transportation
problems followed by the existing and future travel needs by travel
mode: roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian. A detailed description
and analysis of the existing conditions is included in Appendix A, the
land use and demographic profile is included in Appendix D, and the
transportation analysis is included in Appendix E.
Roadway
Problem Statements:
Travel demand and traffic congestion along
the corridor is expected to increase due to
growth in population and employment along
Harmony Road and the surrounding area and
will result in additional pressure on the transportation
infrastructure
Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest
crash totals in the City
Harmony Road is one of the primary gateways into the City of Fort
Collins. Harmony Road travels east/west through southern Fort Collins
from Horsetooth Reservoir to I‐25, through the Town of Timnath, and
into Weld County. Within the project limits of the Harmony Road ETC
(Shields Street to I‐25), the City’s Master Street Plan identifies Harmony
Road as a six‐lane major arterial between College Avenue (US 287) and
I‐25, and as a four‐lane arterial to the west of College Avenue.
Traffic operations Level of Service (LOS
Categories)
398 of 465
9
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Existing Traffic Operations
The existing daily traffic volumes along Harmony Road (shown on Figure 3) range from approximately 19,400
vehicles per day (vpd) on the west end of the corridor near Starflower Drive to 45,800 vpd just west of
Timberline Road. Traffic volumes near I‐25 are approximately 37,100 vpd. The majority of the signalized
intersections along the corridor operate at LOS D or better during the PM Peak hour. The only exceptions are the
intersections with South College Avenue and Timberline Road, which currently operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour.
Figure 3. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
Crash History
The top two intersections with the highest crash totals in the City (2007 – 2010) are the Harmony Road
intersections at Timberline Road and at Lemay Avenue. Based on a review of the top 50 intersections for overall
crash totals, there are seven intersections along Harmony Road that fall within the top 50.
Crash data were collected for the five‐year period from January 2007 through December 2011. During that time,
there were a total of 1,679 reported crashes at the intersections along Harmony Road and 122 mid‐block
crashes between Shields Street and Lady Moon Drive. There were three fatal crashes along the corridor during
the five‐year study period. Two were front to side crashes; one occurred at Lady Moon Drive and the other at
Snow Mesa Drive. The other fatal crash occurred at Stover Street and involved a pedestrian.
Overall, the proportion of injury / fatal crashes along Harmony Road (compared to property damage only
crashes) is generally better than expected when compared to similar arterial facilities. On most four or six lane
arterials, the injury / fatal percent of total is 30 percent on average. There are two intersections (Snow Mesa
Drive and Crest Road) and one segment (McMurry Avenue to Timberline Road) above that threshold. The
frequency of rear‐end crashes is higher than normal throughout the corridor as a result of congestion.
The frequency of bicycle related crashes is higher than normal at the Shields Street intersection. However,
overall, the corridor has a very low occurrence of pedestrian crashes (0.3%) and bike crashes (1.2%), which is
likely in part because of the relatively lower number of bicycle and pedestrian users on the corridor. These totals
are both better than expected for a four or six lane arterial which typically have bike and pedestrian crash
proportions around 1.5 percent.
Land Use and Travel Demand Growth
Between 2009 and 2035, the Harmony Road study area (which includes a one‐mile buffer around the corridor) is
expected to see a 42 percent increase in households and a 71 percent increase in employment. These growth
rates are generally in line with the remainder of Fort Collins. The highest concentration of household growth is
expected to occur in the eastern section of the corridor, in the currently undeveloped land south of Harmony
399 of 465
10
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Road between Ziegler Road and Strauss Cabin Road. Notable
household growth is also expected in the northwest
quadrant of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road and just west of
the Harmony Road ETC, between Shields Street and Taft Hill
Road. High concentrations of employment growth are also
expected in the eastern section of the corridor in the
undeveloped land south of Harmony Road, as well as in the
vicinity of College Avenue.
The western portion of the corridor (Shields Street to College
Avenue) is projected to experience an approximate 10,000
vehicle per day (vpd) increase in traffic, with 2035 forecasts
in the 30,000 to 35,000 vpd range. Forecasts in the central
portion of the corridor (College Avenue to Ziegler Road) are
in the range of 39,000 to 54,000 vehicles per day (vpd)
through most of the segment. The eastern segment of the
corridor (Ziegler Road to I‐25) is expected to have the greatest increase in travel demand with forecasts ranging
from 55,000 to 63,000 vpd (approximately 50 percent higher than existing).
In 2035, nearly the entire corridor is projected to be congested, even with the recent completion of the six‐lane
widening project between Boardwalk Drive and Timberline Road. Most of the study area intersections are
projected to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour in 2035 if no additional improvements are made.
Transit
Problem Statements:
The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous, making transit travel along
Harmony Road and to key activity centers throughout Fort Collins inefficient and
inconvenient
The existing Harmony Road cross‐section does not accommodate potential mixed‐use
and transit‐oriented development
Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between modes (e.g., transit to
pedestrian) nor between each mode and the destinations along the corridor (e.g., pedestrian
connections to commercial areas)
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Existing Service and Ridership
Transfort currently has three routes that provide service
along Harmony Road: Routes 1, 16 and 17. Routes 1 and 17
are primarily north/south oriented except for the portion of
the route serving the Harmony Road area. Route 16 generally
runs east/west between the Mall Transfer Point (MTP) and
Fossil Ridge High School, southeast of Harmony and Ziegler
Roads. Route 19 and the regional route FLEX provide
north/south connections from the corridor but no service
along the corridor. Existing weekday ridership on Harmony
Road is served primarily by Route 16 which serves
A typical Transfort bus stop along Harmony Road
Residential growth within the Harmony Road study area is
expected to increase 42 percent, and employment is
expected to increase 71 percent.
400 of 465
11
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
approximately 260 riders per day. In addition, Routes 1, 17, and 19 provide north‐south service through Fort
Collins with service to destinations on Harmony Road. As illustrated on Figure 4, there is currently no bus to the
Harmony Transfer Center, and traveling the length of the Harmony Road ETC would require transferring.
As can be seen on Figure 4, the highest concentration of transit boardings/alightings in the corridor is in
the vicinity of Harmony Road/Shields Street at the Front Range Community College. Other stops with
relatively high numbers of boardings/alightings include the stops east of Timberline Road, near John F.
Kennedy Parkway, and in the vicinity of Ziegler Road near the major employment centers (Hewlett Packard
and Intel Corporation).
Future Ridership
Based on the fiscally‐committed transit system included in the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan
(including MAX, general realignment of the transit system around the South Transit Center, and route
extensions around the University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus), it is forecast that approximately
650 riders per day would board along the Harmony Road corridor in 2035. These findings suggest a 250
percent increase in transit ridership over existing conditions.
Challenges for Transit Service
The design of much of Harmony Road makes providing safe, convenient and efficient transit service difficult for
Transfort and less appealing for users and potential users. These challenges include physical impediments such
as:
Drainage ditches located directly adjacent to the roadway along much of the corridor
Long distances between signalized
intersections
Wide right‐of‐way to cross (six travel lanes
with deceleration/acceleration lanes and bike
lanes in most locations)
Lack of sidewalk connections in some
locations
Lack of convenient sidewalk connections to
amenities along the corridor (80’ setbacks)
Lack of curb and gutter infrastructure along
most of the corridor
These physical barriers limit where transit stops are
located throughout the corridor and can discourage
potential riders from trying transit service.
Concrete‐lined drainage ditch creates a barrier for transit rides.
401 of 465
12
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 4. Transit Boardings and Alightings
402 of 465
13
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle
Problem Statements:
Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable because Harmony is a high‐
volume, high‐speed corridor
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Fort Collins has an extensive bicycle network composed
of on‐street bike lanes, designated bike routes, and
multi‐use trails. Harmony Road has six‐ to ten‐foot bike
lanes on both sides of the street from I‐25 through the
Shields Street intersection.
The full length of the
Harmony Road ETC
currently provides a
bicycle level of service of A
or B, and this LOS is
expected to remain even
with the increased traffic
volumes associated with
the 2035 No Action scenario. Bicycle intersection LOS for movements along
Harmony Road (in the east‐west direction) are LOS A or B, with the exception of
the crossing of College Avenue, which is LOS C. Bicycle intersection LOS for
movements crossing Harmony Road (in the north‐south direction) range from A
to C, except at the College Avenue intersection where the bicycle LOS is D.
Although bike lanes are provided along the entire length of the study corridor, and the bicycle levels of service
are good, bicycle counts indicate low levels of biking activity in the corridor. The low bicycle counts may be an
indication that the perceived safety of bicycling along Harmony Road is not consistent with the calculated LOS.
There is a need to encourage bicycle travel along the corridor to provide a more balanced multimodal corridor.
Pedestrian
Problem Statements:
Harmony Road traffic signals (and pedestrian crossings) are typically spaced at half‐mile
intervals which require long, sometimes out‐of‐direction travel for pedestrians crossing
Harmony Road
Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between
modes nor between each mode and the destinations along the corridor
Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe pedestrian crossing points
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Sidewalks along Harmony Road have been built as development has occurred. In general, the sidewalks conform
to the urban design character recommended in the Harmony Corridor Plan: wide setbacks with naturalistic
berming, and a meandering eight‐foot sidewalk. Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the corridor,
Bicycle segment Level of
Service (LOS) represents a
measure of how
comfortable a bicyclists
within a variety of skill
levels would be when
using the facility. Bicycle
intersection LOS
represents the perceived
hazard of the shared
roadway environment
through the intersection.
A bicyclists riding in the Harmony Road bike lane.
403 of 465
14
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
and all but a few sections of the sidewalk are detached from the roadway. There are, however, a few sections of
the corridor that lack sidewalks, most notably between Ziegler Road and Strauss Cabin Road. Pedestrian counts
indicate low levels of walking activity in the corridor, despite the presence of sidewalks along the majority of the
corridor.
The existing pedestrian segment levels of
service along Harmony Road range from
A to F; LOS A, B, or C is typically observed
where the sidewalk is substantially
separated from the vehicular traffic,
providing a more comfortable
environment for pedestrians. LOS D is
observed where the sidewalk is attached
to the roadway, and LOS E or F is
observed where the sidewalk is missing.
All crossings of Harmony Road are currently at LOS C or D, while the
pedestrian LOS for crossing the side streets ranges from A to D. With the
increased traffic volumes associated with the 2035 No Action scenario, the
pedestrian segment levels of service are generally expected to degrade by
one LOS (e.g., from LOS E to LOS F).
In many ways Harmony Road provides a sheltered, pleasant walking
experience because of the naturalistic berming, abundant landscaping and
wide setbacks. However, the corridor also requires pedestrians to walk long distances out of their way and
across a large, busy road in the process. In addition,
connections to corridor land uses are not ideal.
Challenges for Pedestrians
Even with sidewalks provided throughout most of the
corridor, pedestrian connections are often inconvenient,
inaccessible and even lack safety considerations for
pedestrian users. Some of the challenges pedestrians face
throughout the corridor include:
Indirect pedestrian connections to destinations (e.g.,
connections ending at the back of buildings and lack
of desirable visual connection between the corridor
and the surrounding land uses)
Limited and long distances between signalized street
crossings, encouraging jay‐walking across Harmony
Road
Large 80’ setback from Harmony Road and adjacent uses
Large Harmony Road right‐of‐way for pedestrians to cross comfortably
Drainage ditches located between the detached sidewalks and street, limiting the available location of
bus stops
Pedestrian segment LOS can be
quantified to reflect the
comfort experienced by
pedestrians. Pedestrian LOS at
intersections is based on the
delay incurred by pedestrians
the pedestrians’ exposure to
and interaction with turning
vehicles.
This photo illustrates large setback adjacent to Harmony
Road and an example of a concrete lined ditch that
separates the roadway from the corridor land uses.
Wide meandering sidewalks exist
along much of Harmony Road.
404 of 465
15
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
The project goals listed below reflect the need to address four transportation problem areas (multimodal
mobility, accessibility, safety, and sustainability) and are consistent with the City of Fort Collins’ vision for the
future. The objectives provide guidance for attaining each goal and reflect the expected results to be achieved
during the planning horizon of the project. The goals and objectives are the foundation for the evaluation
criteria.
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Objectives:
Provide comfortable and convenient multimodal travel options that include auto, transit, walking and
bicycling
Provide a transportation system that supports existing and planned land uses, including future mixed‐
use and transit‐oriented development
Provide multimodal connections to the City’s system of Enhanced Travel Corridors and Regionally
Significant Corridors
Help accommodate future travel demand by increasing bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation’s
share of trips
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Objectives:
Improve connectivity among various travel modes along and across the corridor
Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing and future land uses
Provide a multimodal system that is accessible to all abilities and a broad demographic
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Objectives:
Improve multimodal travel safety along and across the corridor
Increase opportunities for pedestrians to safely cross Harmony Road
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Objectives:
Increase the use of environmentally friendly transportation options
Implement affordable and cost‐effective transportation solutions
Implement a solution that complements the larger transportation system
Provide a system that supports planned land uses and economic vitality
405 of 465
16
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
3. Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The development and evaluation of
alternative improvements consisted of a
two‐tier process that began with a
broad range of potentially promising
cross‐sectional elements for each
corridor travel mode (roadway, transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian). The
fundamental philosophy in the
screening process was to systematically
identify the positive and negative
characteristics and tradeoffs among
alternatives resulting ultimately in a
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
In the Tier 1 evaluation and screening
process, the alternatives were evaluated
at a high level for fatal flaws and their
ability to address the Purpose and Need.
The cross‐sectional elements were
combined to develop Tier 2 corridor alternatives. The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and
quantitative comparison between corridor alternatives and against the No Action Alternative based on the
forecasted conditions in 2035. Inter‐departmental and agency coordination, as well as public involvement,
played a major role in this process. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was involved in each step of the
evaluation process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA. This chapter summarizes the
evaluation processes and the key findings of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation. More detailed information
pertaining to the evaluation process is provided in the appendices, as noted below:
Appendix C summarizes the public input received throughout the study
Appendix D provides more detailed transportation analysis completed in support of the alternatives
development and evaluation process
Appendix F describes the environmental resources inventory and evaluation
Appendix G documents the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation results in a matrix format
Evaluation Criteria
Criteria for developing and evaluating alternatives were established to respond directly to the project’s Purpose
and Need and its goals and objectives. The evaluation criteria used in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening are shown
in Table 1. The criteria were developed to be appropriate for the evaluation level being conducted and the
alternatives being considered. The criteria and corresponding measures used in Tier 1 were primarily qualitative
in nature. The Tier 2 evaluation criteria were focused on those measures that could best be used to differentiate
the corridor alternatives and facilitate the selection of the LPA. The responsiveness of each alternative to the
criteria determined whether or not the alternative was reasonable and if it should be advanced for further
evaluation.
406 of 465
17
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria
Objectives Evaluation Criteria Tier 1 Tier 2
Develop improvements that reflect
stakeholder desires.
Level of support received through public
outreach process
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Provide comfortable and convenient
multimodal travel options that include
auto, transit, walking and bicycling.
Provide a transportation system that
supports existing and planned land
uses, including future mixed‐use and
transit‐oriented development.
Help accommodate future travel
demand by increasing bicycle,
pedestrian and public transportation’s
share of trips.
Auto comfort and convenience
Traffic operations
Transit comfort and convenience
Transit ridership
Pedestrian comfort and convenience
Bicycling comfort and convenience
Balance multimodal needs
Support future TOD and mixed use
Provide multimodal connections to the
City’s system of Enhanced Travel
Corridors and Regionally Significant
Corridors.
Multimodal connections to transit centers/ETCs
Auto access to I‐25
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Improve connectivity among various
travel modes along and across the
corridor.
Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle
connections to existing and future land
uses.
Provide a multimodal system that is
accessible to all abilities and a broad
demographic.
Ease of bicycle/pedestrian crossing
Quality of transit service
Accommodate a variety of bicycle and
pedestrian user types and abilities
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Improve multimodal travel safety along
and across the corridor.
Increase opportunities for pedestrians
to safely cross Harmony Road.
Improve safety at high crash locations
Potential crash reduction benefits (based on
crash modification factors)
Buffer between vehicular traffic and bicyclists
18
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Objectives Evaluation Criteria Tier 1 Tier 2
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Increase the use of environmentally
friendly transportation options.
Potential ROW impacts
Potential environmental resources impacts
Drainage/impervious surface area
Mode shift potential
Implement affordable and cost‐effective
transportation solutions.
Consistent with potential demand
Cost
Implement a solution that complements
the larger transportation system.
Conformance with Transportation Master Plan
(TMP)
Provide a system that supports planned
land uses and economic vitality.
Consistent with land use plans/zoning
No Action Alternative
The 2035 No Action transportation network includes those improvement projects which are expected to be
funded by 2035. These transportation projects would be built regardless of any other improvements that are
identified as part of the Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis. The No Action Alternative does not address the
purpose and need but has been carried through the analysis for comparison.
Roadway
Planned Roadway Projects
Along Harmony Road, the No Action roadway network includes the recently completed
widening project (Timberline Road to Boardwalk Drive). The No Action alternative also includes
three widening projects in close proximity to the Harmony Road ETC:
The Town of Timnath’s Harmony Road widening project (four lane widening from CR 3 to CR 5)
College Avenue widening to six lanes from Harmony Road to Carpenter Road
Timberline Road widening to six lanes from Vine Drive to Harmony Road
Travel Demand Forecasts
The analysis of future travel demands along the Harmony Road is based on the NFRMPO’s 2035 travel demand
model, as modified by the City of Fort Collins for the development of the 2011 Transportation Master Plan to
represent the City’s 2035 Fiscally Constrained transportation network. The household and employment
forecasts described in Appendix D were used as input in the travel demand model.
408 of 465
19
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A comparison of the existing and future (2035 No Action) daily traffic forecasts is presented on Figure 5. The
western portion of the corridor (Shields Street to College Avenue) is projected to experience an approximate
5,000 to 10,000 vehicle per day (vpd) increase in traffic, with 2035 forecasts in the 30,000 to 35,000 vpd range.
Forecasts in the central portion of the corridor (College Avenue to Ziegler Road) are in the range of 35,000 to
54,000 vehicles per day (vpd) through most of the segment. The eastern segment of the corridor (Ziegler Road
to I‐25) is expected to have the greatest increase in travel demand with forecasts ranging from 55,000 to 63,000
vpd (approximately 50 percent higher than existing).
Volume to capacity (v/c) ratios compare the capacity of a street to the volume of traffic that it carries or is
projected to carry in the future. A planning level capacity of 8,000 vehicles per day per lane was used to
estimate and compare the level of congestion today and in the future. Figure 5 shows those segments of the
corridor that are uncongested (v/c ratio less than 0.75), congesting (v/c ratio between 0.75 and 1.0), and
congested (v/c ratio greater than 1.0) today and in the future. Based on this planning level analysis, congestion is
currently experienced between College Avenue and Timberline Road, with most of the remainder of the corridor
“congesting.” In 2035, nearly the entire corridor is projected to be congested in the No Action scenario, even
with the recently completed six‐lane widening project between Boardwalk Drive and Timberline Road.
409 of 465
20
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 5. Traffic Forecasts and V/C Ratios (Existing and 2035 No Action)
The inventory and analysis
of existing conditions was
completed prior to the
widening of Harmony Road
between Timberline Road
and Boardwalk Drive.
However, this widening
project (which was
completed in 2012) is
accounted for in the No
Action alternative.
410 of 465
21
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit
Planned Transit Projects
The No Action transit network includes the transit operational improvements recommended in
the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (August 2009). Key aspects of this plan include the
construction of the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), construction of a new South Transit
Center southwest of Harmony Road and College Avenue, and general realignment of the transit
system around this new transit center that is designed to provide better service to areas of demand in 2035.
Along Harmony Road, it includes route extensions around the University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus.
Additionally, the No Action Alternative includes the capital cost associated with the recommendations in the
North I‐25 EIS Record of Decision, which includes Express Bus service along I‐25 connecting Fort Collins to other
Front Range destinations, including Loveland and Denver.
The Mason Corridor is currently under construction.
The corridor includes MAX BRT service and improved
non‐motorized facilities and is scheduled to be
completed in 2014. The new BRT service will run
north/south adjacent to Mason Street and the BNSF
Railroad, both of which parallel College Avenue. It will
provide a connection between the Downtown Transit
Center and the new South Transit Center (STC), which
is located to the south of the Mason Street and
Harmony Road intersection. This bus service, when
combined with the shared‐use trail along Mason
Street, will improve access to the corridor. MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the
corridor including Downtown commercial, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail
areas. It is expected to operate nearly twice as fast as auto travel along College Avenue and provide high
frequency service every 10 minutes.
Transit Ridership Forecasts
Based on transit system changes included in the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan, transit ridership forecasts
for the 2035 No Action have been developed. In 2012, there were approximately 260 boardings per day along
the Harmony Road corridor on Route 16. It is forecast that approximately 650 riders per day would board along
the Harmony Road corridor in the 2035 No Action scenario, a 250 percent increase in transit ridership over
existing conditions.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
As described in Chapter 2, the bicycle and pedestrian segment LOS are impacted
by the level of traffic on the adjacent roadway. The forecasted increase in traffic
volumes in 2035 would result in some reduction in pedestrian LOS along the
corridor. In general, the pedestrian LOS would be reduced by one level of service
(e.g., from LOS C to LOS D) in the 2035 No Action scenario in comparison to the
current LOS (as documented in Appendix A). Where new sidewalk was recently constructed between Timberline
Road and the UP Railroad with the widening project, the future pedestrian LOS will improve to D (currently LOS
F). The bicycle LOS methodology application along Harmony Road is less sensitive to increases in traffic volumes.
The 2035 No Action bicycle LOS are expected to remain in line with current conditions (LOS A and B). However,
the existing low mode split for bicyclists and pedestrians (compared to other corridors in Fort Collins) would
likely be further decrease in the future if no improvements were made to the corridor.
MAX BRT service is scheduled to commence in May 2014.
411 of 465
22
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 1 Alternatives Development
The alternatives development process began with the development of 18 corridor‐wide elements. As shown in
Table 2, these elements included a broad range of improvements by travel mode (roadway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian) that were identified to potentially address the project needs. Given that no single element would
address all of the project needs as a stand‐alone improvement, the intent of identifying these Tier 1 elements by
mode was to combine elements together as part of packaged alternatives.
Table 2. Tier 1 Modal Elements
Travel Mode Element
Roadway 2 General Purpose Lanes per direction
3 General Purpose Lanes per direction
4 General Purpose Lanes per direction
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Transit
Local Bus in Mixed Traffic
Enhanced Bus with Transit Priority Treatments
(queue jumps and/or transit signal priority)
Curbside Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Median BRT
Light Rail/Streetcar
Bicycle Bike Lanes (shoulder)
Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike/Bus Lanes
Shared Use Paths
Cycle Tracks
Back Street Bike Lanes
Pedestrian Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks
Shared Use Paths
Crossing Enhancements at Signalized Intersections
Grade Separated Crossings
Tier 1 Evaluation and Screening Results
In the Tier 1 evaluation, these elements were first assessed independently on their ability to meet the Tier 1
evaluation criteria, as set forth in Table 1. The evaluation was qualitative in nature, using measures of “Poor,”
“Fair,” “Good,” and “Best.” Those alternative elements that were deemed to meet the project Purpose and
Need were advanced to a secondary evaluation within Tier 1 in which the modal elements were combined to
develop conceptual cross‐section alternatives.
412 of 465
23
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The cross‐section alternatives were then evaluated for each of three corridor segments using the Tier 1
evaluation criteria. The three corridor segments (as shown on Figure 6) were identified based on their unique
travel characteristics, adjacent land uses and corridor constraints (such as right of way). Evaluating the cross‐
section alternatives separately by segment facilitated advancing only those elements and cross‐sections that are
most appropriate and beneficial in each of the three segments. Table 3 summarizes the modal elements
eliminated through the Tier 1 evaluation and screening process. While most of the elements listed were
eliminated for all three segments of the corridor, there are two notable exceptions. Widening to six lanes was
eliminated only in the west segment (Shields Street to College Avenue), and bike lanes (as an element of a build
alternative) were eliminated only in the central and east segments (College Avenue to I‐25). The bike lanes have
been retained as part of the No Action Alternative for comparison purposes.
413 of 465
24
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 6. Harmony Corridor Segment Characteristics
414 of 465
25
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 3. Summary of Elements Eliminated in Tier 1
Travel
Mode
Element Example
Segment(s) in which
Element was
Eliminated
Primary Reason(s) for Elimination
Roadway/
Transit
Major Widening
(6 lanes)
West
Considerable ROW impacts; would make Harmony more difficult to
cross; therefore, less accommodating of bicycle and pedestrian
modes
Roadway/
Transit
Major Widening
(8 Lanes)
West, Central, East
Considerable ROW impacts; would make Harmony more difficult to
cross; therefore, less accommodating of bicycle and pedestrian
modes
Transit Light Rail
West, Central, East
Prohibitive cost; inconsistent with potential demands; limited
operational and implementation flexibility
Transit Streetcar West, Central, East
Prohibitive cost; inconsistent with potential demands; limited
operational and implementation flexibility
Transit Median BRT
West, Central, East
Higher cost compared to other alternatives; would limit
opportunities for landscaping in median which is highly desired by
the community
Transit Bus only Lane
West, Central, East Would be detrimental to traffic operations
Transit/
Bicycle
Shared Bus/
Bike Lane
West, Central, East
Would not address the need to separate the bicyclists from
vehicular travel lanes
Bicycle Bike Lane
Central, East
Does not address the need to provide comfortable and convenient
multimodal travel options because of high speeds and traffic
volumes (retained in No Action only)
415 of 465
26
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 2 Alternatives Development
The results of the Tier 1 evaluation process were presented to and discussed with the TAC, corridor stakeholder
groups, and the public. After considering and reflecting upon the input received during this outreach effort, the
Project Management Team discussed how to efficiently and effectively package the remaining cross‐section
alternatives for the more detailed analysis required in Tier 2. The Tier 2 Alternatives include improvements for
all travel modes; however, because the transit elements are the key differentiators between the alternatives,
the Tier 2 Alternatives are titled based on the transit service, as shown in Table 4.
As described previously, the No Action Alternative includes only those improvements that are fiscally
constrained. Along Harmony Road, the No Action improvements include fiscally‐committed transit service
modifications and widening of College Avenue and Timberline Road through their intersections with Harmony
Road.
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative consists of lower‐cost alternatives that would still
produce meaningful operational improvements. The local bus service along Harmony Road would be expanded
to provide continuous service along the full length of the corridor. The TSM Alternative includes widening the
section of Harmony Road between College Avenue and Boardwalk Drive to six lanes. To address the operational
deficiencies in the No Action Alternative, four intersections along the corridor have been identified for capacity
improvements:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
For the purpose of the Tier 2 evaluation, specific intersection improvements (turn lane additions and
channelization) were identified to provide a minimum 2035 PM peak hour level of service (LOS) of E. These
intersection improvements, as well as the widening of Harmony Road (College to Boardwalk), were applied to all
build alternatives for consistency.
The Enhanced Bus Alternative would provide high‐quality, high‐
frequency bus service operating in mixed‐traffic with queue
jumps at select intersections. A queue jump is a special priority
lane at an intersection approach that allows transit vehicles to
bypass queued vehicles. A new Harmony Enhanced Bus route
would be developed that would operate from Harmony Transfer
Center (HTC) to Front Range Community College (FRCC).
There are two alternatives that would provide high‐quality, high‐
frequency Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. The BRT service would
be provided in a curbside lane that is dedicated for use by buses
and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). In these alternatives, the BRT/HOV lane would use the existing outside lane
in both travel directions. Therefore, Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) would be limited to using of the inside lane
in each direction between Shields Street and College Avenue and the two inside lanes in each direction between
College Avenue and I‐25. There are two variations of transit service for this alternative. The End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV Alternative includes BRT service along the full length of the Harmony Corridor, and for trips to/from
downtown, passengers would transfer to MAX. The Interlined BRT/HOV Alternative involves interlining the
416 of 465
27
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Harmony Road BRT service with MAX; resulting in a one‐seat ride from any station along Harmony Road to the
Downtown Transit Center.
The bicycle and pedestrian elements that were retained from the Tier 1 screening could be paired with any of
the four Tier 2 build alternatives. Therefore, the bicycle and pedestrian options (as listed in Table 4) were
evaluated independently.
Table 4. Tier 2 Alternatives1
Alternative
Roadway
Infrastructure
Transit
Infrastructure
on Harmony
Transit
Service
on Harmony
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Accommodation
No Action Existing Existing
Committed FY14 Transfort
service modifications
Existing
Transportation
System
Management
(TSM)
Widen Harmony
(Boardwalk to
College) to 6
Lanes; intersection
improvements
Existing
Expanded Local Bus service
(Phase 1 of Transfort
Strategic Operating Plan)
Front Range Community
College (FRCC) to Harmony
Transfer Center (HTC)
Options2:
Bike lanes +
detached
sidewalks (West
Segment only)
Buffered bike
lanes + detached
sidewalks
Cycle tracks +
detached
sidewalks
Shared use paths
Enhanced Bus Same as TSM
Queue jumps
at major
intersections
Enhanced bus service (FRCC
to HTC); increased frequency
End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV
28
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 2 Evaluation and Screening Results
In the Tier 2 evaluation process, the alternatives were evaluated against the evaluation criteria that were
developed based on the goals and objectives and Purpose and Need as previously summarized in Table 1. The
Tier 2 evaluation criteria include a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. While some of
the Tier 1 evaluation criteria were used again in Tier 2, the Tier 2 evaluation considered the criteria in more
detail than the Tier 1 screening.
The NFRMPO’s 2035 travel demand model, as modified by the City of Fort Collins for the development of the
2011 Transportation Master Plan to represent the City’s 2035 Fiscally Constrained transportation network, was
used to estimate and compare travel demand and travel patterns for automobile and transit modes. The
following sections summarize the key findings from the Tier 2 evaluation by travel mode. More detail about the
transportation analysis is included in Appendix E, and the Tier 2 evaluation matrix is included in Appendix G.
Roadway
Traffic Forecasts
The forecasted 2035 daily traffic volumes for each of the Tier 2 alternatives are shown on Figure
7 in comparison to the existing traffic volumes. The TSM, Enhanced Bus, and BRT/HOV
Alternatives are expected to carry higher traffic volumes than the No Action Alternative
between College Avenue and McMurry Avenue as a result of the increased capacity (six‐lane
widening from College to Boardwalk). The traffic forecasts on the remainder of the corridor are expected to
remain approximately consistent with the 2035 No Action forecasts.
Traffic Operations
The outputs from the NFRMPO travel demand model were used to develop 2035 PM peak hour intersection
turning movements which were then analyzed in Synchro to compare the intersection operations for the Tier 2
alternatives as summarized in Figure 8.
418 of 465
29
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 7. 2035 Traffic Forecasts for Tier 2 Alternatives
419 of 465
30
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 8. 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
In the No Action Alternative, four
intersections along Harmony Road would
operate at LOS E, and one intersection
(Ziegler Road) would operation at LOS F. The
roadway improvements (widening and
intersection improvements) associated with
the TSM Alternative and Enhanced Bus
Alternative would result in most
intersections operating at LOS D or better,
and two intersections (College Avenue and
Timberline Road) operating at LOS E. The
BRT/HOV Alternatives (both End‐to‐End and
Interlined) would result in some degradation
of intersection operations because SOVs
(which are estimated to make up 77 percent of the traffic) would be restricted from using the curbside travel
lanes. The intersection of Harmony Road and College Avenue would be most heavily affected by this
configuration, with PM peak hour operations at LOS F.
Corridor Travel Times
A comparison of corridor travel times for SOV and HOV travel along Harmony Road is provided in Figure 9. The
TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives would result in a 13 percent reduction in travel time (two minutes)
compared to the No Action Alternative. The two BRT/HOV Alternatives would result in a 28 percent reduction in
travel time for HOVs (four minutes), but a 20 percent increase in travel time (three minutes) for SOVs compared
to the No Action Alternative.
Figure 9. 2035 PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times
Summary of Findings
Key findings related to the traffic operations
include:
Intersection improvements are needed at
several locations to accommodate future
demand
Using the outside lanes for BRT/HOV
through the College intersection would
cause considerable operational problems
BRT/HOV alternatives would provide a
travel time savings of as much as seven
minutes for carpoolers
Travel time for SOVs would increase 20
percent in the BRT/HOV alternatives
Queue jumps in the Enhanced Bus Alternative could be most beneficial at about 3‐5 locations where
congestion and queue lengths are expected to be the longest
420 of 465
31
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit
Evaluation of the transit service performance for the Tier 2 alternatives was also completed
using the NFRMPO regional travel demand model (more detailed analysis results are included in
Appendix E). The No Action and TSM Alternatives assume 60 minute peak and off‐peak
headways; the Enhanced Bus and BRT/HOV Alternatives assume 20 minute headways during
the peak periods and 30 minute headways during the off‐peak periods. Figure 10 shows the
2035 average weekday ridership along the Harmony corridor and on MAX. MAX ridership is critical to effectively
compare the Interlined BRT/HOV Alternative with the other Tier 2 alternatives.
Figure 10. 2035 Average Daily Transit Boardings
As shown, the TSM Alternative would result
in a modest 15 percent increase in ridership
on Harmony compared to the No Action
Alternative. The Enhanced Bus Alternative
would result in a more than tripling of the
No Action ridership, and the End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV would result in a nearly
quadrupling of the No Action ridership. The
ridership for the Interlined BRT/HOV
Alternative includes those riders on
Harmony and MAX as is approximately five
percent less in total than the End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV ridership. However, this decrease
in overall ridership must be assessed in
combination with the number of transfers being made; by providing a one‐seat ride from any Harmony Road
station to downtown via the Interline BRT service, the total number of boardings decreases, but the average
number of transfers per trip is decreased substantially, as shown in Figure 11. A lower average number of
transfers per trips is representative of a more convenient transit system.
Figure 11. Average Transfers per Transit Trip
Summary of Findings
Increasing frequency results in
largest increase in boardings
Interlined service MAX to
Harmony east reduces transfers
and increases ridership
Interlined service to the west
competes with Route 19
Capital associated with HOV
conversion would be relatively low
BRT demand requires articulated
fleet
BRT shelters and fleet are very
costly
421 of 465
32
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Travel Speeds by Mode
In order to provide a direct comparison of the roadway and transit components of the Tier 2 Alternatives, the
average corridor travel speeds were evaluated by travel mode. The average travel speeds account for
intersection delays for all travel modes and dwell times to board and alight for transit. As shown in Figure 12,
corridor travel speeds (average per person) for SOVs are the highest in the TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives;
speeds decrease in the BRT/HOV Alternatives (primarily as a result of delays at the College Avenue intersection).
Corridor travel speeds for HOVs are the highest in the BRT/HOV Alternative because they have exclusive use of
the outside lanes (with transit). Corridor travel speeds for transit are highest in the Enhanced Bus and BRT/HOV
Alternatives. The average corridor travel speeds (average for all people in the corridor, regardless of mode) are
highest in the TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives, followed by the BRT/HOV Alternatives.
Figure 12. 2035 PM Peak Hour Averages Speeds
422 of 465
33
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian
As shown in Table 4, the Tier 2 bicycle and pedestrian options could be paired
with any of the Tier 2 build alternatives (TSM, Enhanced Bus, End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV or Interlined BRT/HOV). The bicycle and pedestrian options are
described below along with the primary factors that were considered in the Tier
2 evaluation.
Bike Lanes + Detached Sidewalks
This alternative represents the existing conditions for much
of the Harmony Road corridor. However, this option would
involve completing the missing sidewalk segments that exist
in several locations along the corridor. As described in the
Tier 1 evaluation, bike lanes as an element of a build
alternative were eliminated for the Central and East
segments because of the perceived safety issue
demonstrated by relatively low utilization. Bike lanes in the
Central and East segments do not afford comfortable and
convenient multimodal travel options because of high
speeds and traffic volumes. This option has been retained
for the West segment, and the primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians; more accommodating of different abilities than
a shared use path
Minimal cost to complete missing sidewalk segments
Disadvantages
Less confident bicyclists may not be comfortable riding in close proximity to a travel lane
Buffered Bike Lanes + Detached Sidewalks
Buffered bike lanes provide greater space between motor vehicles
and bicyclists, provide space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist,
and appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users. This option
includes completion of the missing sidewalk segments that exist in
several locations along the corridor. The primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would improve bicycle accommodation by enhancing
drivers’ visibility and awareness of bicyclists
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians;
more accommodating of different abilities than a shared
use path or bike lanes
Heightened driver awareness of bicyclists and presence of buffer may provide improved comfort for
bicyclists (improved bicycle LOS)
Relatively low cost improvement to complete missing sidewalk segments and add buffer striping
423 of 465
34
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Can be accommodated on existing infrastructure in Central and East segments
Disadvantages
Would require widening (and higher cost) on East segment
Would not provide a physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles
Cycle Tracks + Detached Sidewalks
A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that is physically separated
from motorized traffic typically by a raised median or bollards.
Although cycle tracks can be one‐way or two‐way, for Harmony
Road, the cycle track option that was deemed to be most
appropriate is one‐way cycle tracks on both sides of the street. A
cycle track is distinct from the sidewalk; this option includes
completion of the missing sidewalk segments that exist in several
locations along the corridor. The primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would improve bicycle accommodation by enhancing drivers’ visibility and awareness of bicyclists and
providing a physical separation between auto travel lanes and bicyclists
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians; most accommodating of different abilities
compared to other options
Heightened driver awareness of bicyclists and physical separation from travel lanes provides improved
comfort for bicyclists (improved bicycle LOS)
A recent study1 shows increased bicycling activity and lower risk of injury with implementation of cycle
tracks
Disadvantages
Raised buffer would introduce drainage and maintenance complexities
Highest cost compared to other bicycle/pedestrian options; including completion of missing sidewalk
segments and construction of raised median barrier between travel lane and cycle track
Shared Use Paths
A shared use path is a bikeway physically
separated from motorized traffic by an
open space or barrier and can be either
within the roadway right‐of‐way or within
an independent right‐of‐way. Shared use
paths may also be used by pedestrians,
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and
other non‐motorized users. This option
would include a two‐way shared use path
on each side of Harmony Road (shared
use paths are also referred to as sidepaths
1 “Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street,” Injury Prevention, February 2011, Harvard School of
Public Health Researcher Anne Lusk.
424 of 465
35
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
when adjacent to a roadway) and would replace the existing meandering detached sidewalk with a more direct
and wider (minimum 10 feet) shared use path. The primary advantages and disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would provide a physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles
Disadvantages
Eliminates on‐street bicycling accommodation which is preferred by many advanced and non‐
recreational bicyclists
Bicyclists and pedestrians of all types and abilities would be forced to use this single facility
Would introduce safety concerns associated with operational conflicts between two‐way sidepath and
automobiles at intersections/access points; bicyclists riding on two‐way sidepaths incur much greater
risk of collision than those traveling with traffic2
The use of shared use paths adjacent to a roadway such as Harmony Road is not consistent with
guidelines in the AASHTO Bike Guide,3 which states the following:
• “Provision of a pathway adjacent to the roadway [sidepath] is not a substitute for the provision
of on‐road accommodation such as a paved shoulders or bike lanes…”
• “Best use of sidepath is adjacent to roadways with no or very few intersections or driveways”
Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation
Overall, the Tier 2 evaluation identified the Enhanced Bus, detached sidewalks, bike lanes west of College
Avenue, and buffered bike lanes east of College Avenue as the elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA). Table 5 summarizes the Tier 2 evaluation results.
While the Enhanced Bus Alternative was identified as the strongest alternative for only four of the ten applicable
evaluation criteria, the criteria that largely influenced the selection of the LPA were public and agency support
and balance of multimodal needs. The Enhanced Bus Alternative provides the best compromise of increasing
transit ridership while retaining acceptable traffic operations.
Likewise, the Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk is the strongest bicycle/pedestrian option for the LPA
because it provides the best compromise between ROW impacts/costs/drainage and maintenance (where the
bike lane + detached sidewalk was identified as the strongest candidate) and mode shift potential/
accommodation of a variety of users (where the cycle track + detached sidewalk was identified as the strongest
candidate).
2 “Risk Factors for Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections,” ITE Journal, September 1994.
3 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
425 of 465
36
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 5. Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Evaluation Criteria
Strongest
Roadway/Transit
Alternative
Strongest
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Option
Public and agency support Enhanced Bus Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Traffic operations TSM or Enhanced Bus N/A
Transit ridership Interlined BRT/HOV N/A
Pedestrian comfort and convenience N/A Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Bicycling comfort and convenience N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Balance of multimodal needs Enhanced Bus Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Quality of transit service Interlined BRT/HOV N/A
Accommodate a variety of bicycle and
pedestrian user types and abilities
N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Potential crash reduction benefits
TSM, Enhanced Bus or
BRT/HOV
N/A
Bicycle and pedestrian safety N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Potential ROW impacts TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Drainage/impervious surface area TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Mode shift potential BRT/HOV Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Cost TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
426 of 465
37
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
4. Locally Preferred Alternative
This chapter describes the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) resulting from the extensive alternatives
development and evaluation process conducted in this study. The conceptual engineering plans for the LPA are
included in Appendix H.
LPA Decision Process
The process of selecting the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Harmony Road ETC included the following
steps:
Performing a two‐tiered alternatives development and evaluation process
Soliciting input from the public, stakeholders, and City staff
Presenting the Tier 2 evaluation and public input to the TAC on December 19, 2012, at which time the
TAC requested follow‐up information related to the feasibility of infrastructure improvements identified
in the build alternatives and a direct comparison of corridor travel times by mode between Tier 2
alternatives
Presenting the requested follow‐up information to a sub‐group of the TAC
Making a preliminary recommendation for the LPA based on the strongest Tier 2 roadway/transit
alternative and bicycle/pedestrian option as described in Chapter 3. Consideration was given to the
technical analysis (including the follow‐up information), public input, and input from the Project
Management Team
Refining the LPA based on input from the TAC; the refined LPA was presented to and supported by the
TAC on February 27, 2013
Presenting the project and recommended LPA at a series of City board meetings and public meetings
• Transportation Board – July 18, 2012; March 20, 2013; June 19, 2013.The Transportation Board
acted on the Final Report at their June 19th, 2013 meeting. [Meeting results to be added]
• Bicycle Advisory Committee – July 9, 2012; May 6, 2013. The BAC generally supported the
recommendations of the LPA. They viewed the buffered bike lanes as an improvement over the
existing bike lanes.
• Planning and Zoning Board – May 10, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Board generally supported
the recommendations of the LPA.
• Air Quality Advisory Board – May 20, 2013. The Air Quality Advisory Board had numerous
questions about the impact of the project on air quality. On one hand the Board felt improving
traffic flow had the most potential to improve mobile emissions, while there was also a strong
advocacy for increasing mode shift to transit, bicycling and walking to reduce vehicle miles
traveled. The Board agreed to provide a brief, bulleted document with ideas regarding air
quality issues in this project.
The City Council…[when they have taken an action in support of the LPA, include date of adoption and
description of action]
427 of 465
38
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
LPA Description
The LPA for the Harmony Road ETC, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the
project Purpose and Need. The LPA includes widening the section of Harmony from College Avenue to
Boardwalk Avenue to six lanes, as well as intersection improvements at selected locations to address future
operational deficiencies.
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Enhanced Bus along Harmony Road between the South Transit Center and
the Harmony Transfer Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route
except where queue jumps are provided.
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from
College Avenue east toward I‐25. The meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony Road,
with completion of the few missing segments. The LPA will also include enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian
crossings (both at‐grade and grade separated crossings). The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the entire
length of the corridor.
Roadway Elements
In general, the LPA makes use of the existing roadway infrastructure without major capital
expansion. As shown on Figure 13, the LPA does include widening a short segment (College
Avenue to Boardwalk Drive) to six lanes to better accommodate future travel demands, which
is consistent with the City’s Transportation Master Plan.
Two widening projects which are anticipated within the planning horizon will affect Harmony
Road. College Avenue is planned for widening to six lanes south of Harmony Road which will require
reconfiguration at the Harmony Road intersection to extend three northbound and southbound lanes through
the intersection. Likewise, the Timberline Road intersection will require similar geometric modifications to allow
six through lanes in the north/south direction. Timberline Road is expected to transition to four lanes south of
the Harmony Road intersection. Although these two widening projects are not a part of the LPA, the intersection
modifications to accommodate these projects are considered part of the LPA.
The LPA also includes intersection improvements at four locations along the corridor to address future
operational deficiencies and to enhance safety for automobile travel along the corridor. As shown on Figure 13,
the four intersections identified for improvements include:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
For the purpose of this planning study, geometric improvements were identified to address the operational
deficiencies (as noted previously on Figure 7). However, other types of intersection improvements may be
considered and analyzed in the design phase – roundabouts, continuous flow intersections (CFIs), and Michigan
left turns, for example. This study did not include an exhaustive evaluation of intersection improvements.
428 of 465
39
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 13. Roadway Widening and Intersection Improvements
In addition to the widening and intersection
improvements described above, the LPA
includes urban design elements to provide
consistent aesthesis along the length of the
corridor. As illustrated in Figures 14 and 15,
the LPA includes landscaped medians and
curb and gutter throughout the corridor. The
typical streetscape and median landscape
should emphasize mixed plantings of
perennials, grasses, shrubs, and tree
groupings, with a loosely patterned mulch
surface. The landscape design should reflect
Fort Collins’ western regional character with regionally‐specific plants suited to the particular microclimate and
environmental conditions of the location. Typical features include native boulder groupings, varied cobble mulch
areas and urban elements such as street lights and decorative railings. Low impact water quality measures may
be incorporated into the design as conditions warrant.
Figure 14. Illustrative Example of LPA: Shields Street to College Avenue
429 of 465
40
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 15. Illustrative Example of LPA: College Avenue to I-25
With a project of this size, utility impacts cannot be avoided. However, the
relocation or undergrounding of overhead utility lines, which is quite
common on some projects, is not needed since public and private utilities are
already below ground along the Harmony Road corridor.
Some of the common utility impacts that may occur during the preliminary
design process would be the relocation of some utility pedestals or manholes,
and existing street lighting may need to be relocated. Limiting impacts to
utility infrastructure should be undertaken to the best of the City’s ability
during the preliminary design phase.
Of particular note is that there are existing concrete‐lined irrigation ditches
along Harmony Road may need to be relocated or covered as part of the
future design. These ditches have a typical longitudinal alignment and are
used for capturing roadside drainage and, at one time, for irrigation flows
from the Larimer #2 Extension Ditch (specific to the south side of Harmony
Road). Visual verification of the location of the concrete‐lined ditch is
somewhat sporadic at times and it appears that it has been conveyed to
piping systems as parcels were redeveloped along the corridor.
The concrete‐lined ditch on the
south side of Harmony Road, just
east of College Avenue.
430 of 465
41
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The locations of the visible concrete‐lined ditches are:
College Avenue to Boardwalk Drive: Sporadically along the south side of Harmony Road
Timberline Road to Ziegler Road: Along the south side of Harmony Road; the ditch proceeds southward
along the east side of Ziegler Road at this point, but continues along Harmony Road as a piped system
then as an open, unlined channel
Ziegler Road to Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet: Along the north side of Harmony Road
Coordination with the existing irrigation ditch companies should occur as soon as possible during the preliminary
design process to understand their concerns and their design requirements.
431 of 465
42
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit Elements
LPA transit elements include enhanced bus service, bus stations and stops, and queue jumps at select locations.
Enhanced Bus Service
The LPA includes a new 4 ½ mile Enhanced Bus route along Harmony Road between the
Harmony Transfer Center and the South Transit Center. Figure 16 illustrates the proposed
Harmony Enhanced Bus route referred to as Route H. The route would begin at the Harmony
Transfer Center, north of Harmony Road and to the west of I‐25. It would travel west along
Harmony Road stopping on demand at bus stops and stations located approximately every ¼ mile along the
corridor. At College Avenue the bus would turn south to access the South Transit Center and connect to the
planned MAX service that is currently under construction.
To the west of College Avenue, Harmony Road would be served by the existing Route 19 connecting the South
Transit Center, Front Range Community College and the CSU Transit Center. Route H would also connect with
the Route 17 at Timberline Road and with Route 7 at John F. Kennedy Parkway.
Route H would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods. In 2035, it is
estimated that the Express Bus along Harmony Road would serve approximately 2,000 boardings daily
depending on the route service pattern. Interlining the Harmony Road service with MAX would result in higher
ridership compared to the end‐to‐end stand‐alone service. This is the result of providing a single seat ride
between Harmony Road and downtown Fort Collins which results in shorter travel time and no transfers.
The service would require three buses plus a spare if the buses are branded for service specifically along the
Harmony Road Corridor. Buses would be low floor and articulated to accommodate demand and could
seamlessly integrate with MAX service. Stops would be provided approximately every ¼ mile. Drivers would stop
when a passenger is waiting to board at any of the stops along the route or when a riding passenger has
provided indication that they will be alighting at the approaching stop.
Annually the Route H service would run approximately 10,500 service hours assuming end‐to‐end service. Based
on Transfort's current hourly cost per service hour of $93, the annual operating and maintenance costs would be
approximately $990,000 (2012 dollars). A Route H service pattern interlined with MAX would require a similar
number of additional service hours.
Figure 16. LPA Transit Routes
432 of 465
43
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Queue Jumps
The LPA also includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road: 1) Lemay Avenue, 2) Timberline
Road, and 3) Ziegler Road. Buses using the queue jump and right turning vehicles cross the buffered bike lane as
they approach the intersection; right turning vehicles travel around the right turn channelization island while
approaching buses continue straight. With a green indication buses travel through the intersection concurrently
with the other through travel lanes to a receiving lane on the far side of the intersection and to the bus stop.
Figure 17 illustrates the queue jump in relation to the bus stop at a typical intersection.
Figure 17. Illustrative of Queue Jump Lanes at Intersection
Bus Stops and Stations
Enhanced transit stations provide a comfortable and safe respite location for transit riders to gather while
anticipating the arrival of the next bus. The intent is to provide shelter, seating, bike parking, waste and recycling
collection, and relevant information regarding the transit system (e.g., maps and time of next bus arrival).
Transit stations are key nodes in the transit system and serve as gathering places for users. These include
locations such as major employers, the hospital, and schools. Stations will be larger than a typical bus stop and
provide more amenities. Station amenities would likely include a custom shelter, bench, bike racks, lighting, a
small plaza area, and a trash receptacle. Spaces for future potential bike share parking should also be considered
when stations are being designed. Stops would have few amenities but would include a standard shelter,
lighting, bench, and trash receptacle. The proposed Harmony station and Harmony local stop locations are
depicted on Figure 18. The LPA conceptual plans (Appendix H) generally do not include bus pull‐outs at the local
stops or stations in order to facilitate the buses’ entrance back into the travel lane. There are a few exceptions:
433 of 465
44
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
At the three intersections with queue jumps (Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Zieger Road), the
queue jump receiving lane will provide a dedicated space for buses at the station; after stopping at the
station, the buses will be required to enter back into the travel lane
A bus pull‐out is recommended at the station near Mason Street to provide buses with a waiting area to
facilitate timed transfers with MAX
The Harmony Transfer Center
would be the end‐of‐line
station and park‐and‐ride
facility for Route H. As such it
would be upgraded to
accommodate 60 foot
articulated buses and provide a
driver bathroom. In addition,
the number of parking spaces is
expected to be increased to 350
as part of the North I‐25 EIS
project.
The stop/station experience is
an important part of the rider experience. The integration of high
quality materials, modern messaging systems, and improved
functionality will serve to improve the image of and increase the
demand for the transit system. Enhanced transit stations support cultural exchange and community building by
providing comfort and safety in the public
realm.
Harmony Station Concept
Harmony Local Stop Concept
434 of 465
45
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 18. Harmony Road Bus Stop and Station Locations
435 of 465
46
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle Elements
Fort Collins was recently designated a Platinum‐level
Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American
Bicyclists. In recognition of the importance of bicycle
travel in Fort Collins, the LPA includes enhanced
bicycle facilities along the full length of the Harmony
Road corridor. East of College Avenue, a buffered bike
lane will provide a visual separation and greater space between the
motorized travel lane and the bike. The buffered bike lanes will also
provide space for a bicyclist to pass another bicyclist, and generally
appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users. Buffered bike lanes are
depicted in Figure 15 for the section of Harmony Road between
College Avenue and I‐25. A buffer width of three feet and a bike lane
width of five is recommended, which exceeds minimum standards in the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide and could fit within the existing roadway
infrastructure on Harmony Road.
As a part of the LPA refinement process, the use of colored
pavement was identified as a desired treatment for the bike lanes
along the full length of Harmony Road (Shields Street to I‐25).
Colored bike lanes help to increase the visibility of the facility,
identify potential areas of conflict, and reinforce priority to
bicyclists. Motorists are expected to yield right of way to bicyclists in
the bike lane. Studies have shown that colored bike lanes,
particularly in conflict areas near intersections, result in increases in
motorist yielding behavior.4 Green colored pavement on Harmony
bike lanes are illustrated on Figures 14 and 15.
While the enhanced bicycle facilities along Harmony Road are
expected to encourage bicycling as a mode of travel along the
corridor, some bicyclists will not be comfortable riding on‐street with the levels of traffic volume and motor
vehicle speeds on Harmony Road. To
accommodate these less‐confident bicyclists, a
network of bike facilities including back street
bike lanes (that is, off the major arterial roads)
is needed. A relatively well‐established
network of bike facilities (primarily bike lanes)
exists within approximately a half‐mile of
Harmony Road. Bike lanes exist along a route a
half‐mile south of Harmony from west of
Lemay Avenue to Lady Moon (approximately
three miles) along Boardwalk Drive, Keenland
Drive, Battle Creek Drive, Stetson Creek Drive,
4 “Evaluation of Blue Bike‐Lane Treatment in Portland, Oregon,” Transportation Research Record 1705, 107‐115, 2008.
“Effects of Colored Lane Markings on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior at Conflict Areas,” Center for Transportation
Research, City of Austin, 2010.
Example of a buffered bike lane in Seattle
Example of a green bike lane in San Francisco
An excerpt from the Fort Collins Bike Plan (2008) showing the Planned
Bikeway Network in the Harmony Road ETC study area.
436 of 465
47
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
and Rock Creek Drive. To bolster the use of these back street bike lanes, the following actions are
recommended:
Complete the missing connection across the UPRR (west of Timberline Road) with a tie‐in to the future
Power Trail
Provide signing and mapping to alert bicyclists of the option to use the back street bike network instead
of Harmony Road
Consider the extension of an east‐west bike route from Lemay to College, with a connection to the
South Transit Center
Pedestrian Elements
Harmony Road is identified in the City’s Pedestrian Plan as a
Pedestrian Priority Area (PPA). The LPA seeks to enhance the
pedestrian experience along the Harmony Road corridor by
providing continuous sidewalk connections along the length
of the corridor (Shields Street to I‐25) and improving the
crossing opportunities along the corridor. The LPA includes completion of the
missing sidewalk segments that exist in several locations along the corridor.
Crossing of Harmony Road has been identified as problematic by the
community, and it will become more difficult as traffic volumes increase in the
future. All signalized intersections along the corridor should include at‐grade
crossing treatments to enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians
(and bicyclists). As shown schematically on Figure 19, these treatments could
include:
Pedestrian crosswalks
Use of TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs (Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD] R10‐15) to remind right‐on‐
green and permissive left‐turn movements of their obligation to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk
Pedestrian activated signals (with the option of a leading pedestrian interval)
Channelized right turn lanes with raised islands
to allow pedestrians to cross the right turning
traffic independently of the rest of the
intersection; the design should encourage low
vehicle turning speeds and should provide
unobstructed sight lines between pedestrians
and motorists
Proper bike lane striping to avoid the right lane
conflict with right turning vehicles
Bicycle detection (particularly on the side street
approaches) and automatically adjusted signal
timing to allow enough time for bikes to cross
Harmony Road within the green time
The characteristic wide meandering
sidewalk along Harmony Road
Example of enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments at the
Harmony Road/Corbett Drive intersection
437 of 465
48
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 19. Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
In addition to the at‐grade intersection crossing enhancements, six locations for future grade‐separated
crossings have been identified and are included in the LPA. As shown in Figure 20, these crossings are
recommended periodically along the corridor to connect land uses north and south of Harmony Road, to
facilitate access to transit stations, and to reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts along the
corridor. Two grade‐separated crossing locations have been identified as the high priority:
Mason Trail (near the BNSF railroad)
Power Trail (near the UP railroad)
These two trails serve regional functions for bicycle and pedestrian travel, and also coincide with future
Harmony Road stations.
Figure 20. Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing Locations
438 of 465
49
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
LPA Performance
Traffic Operations
Provision of the roadway and intersection improvements in the LPA will result in improved intersection levels of
service (LOS) in the future. Most of the major signalized intersections along Harmony Road are expected to
operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour (refer to Figure 21). Two intersections (Harmony
Road/College Avenue and Harmony Road/Timberline Road) are projected to operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour. The LPA is estimated to result in an average corridor travel time (from Shields Street to I‐25 or vice‐
versa) of approximately 12 ½ minutes during the PM peak hour in 2035, which equates to an average speed of
27 mph (including stops at the signalized intersections).
Figure 21. LPA 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
Transit Operations
Enhanced Bus service along the corridor would see approximately
1,800 boardings daily, substantially higher ridership than the
service that exists along the corridor today. Service interlined with
MAX would result in somewhat higher ridership than the end‐to‐
end service pattern.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The enhanced bicycle accommodation in the LPA is expected to
improve bicyclists’ experience and encourage bicycling as a mode
of travel along Harmony Road. The buffered bike lanes will
improve bicycling comfort; green bike lanes are expected to increase drivers’ awareness of bicyclists along the
corridor and increase motorists’ yielding to bicyclists in conflict areas.
The wide meandering sidewalk that exists along much of Harmony Road provides a pleasant walking experience
for pedestrians; completion of the missing sidewalk segments will further enhance the pedestrian experience
and encourage walking as a mode of travel along Harmony Road. At‐grade intersection crossing enhancements
will enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians crossing Harmony Road, and the provision of grade‐
separated crossings approximately every 1 – 1 ½ miles will reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts
across the corridor.
439 of 465
50
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Environmental
Environmental Resources
A cursory‐level environmental inventory of existing conditions and a preliminary assessment of the project
impacts was conducted for the for the Harmony Road ETC study area. The level of analysis performed for this
project is commensurate with the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Alternatives
Analysis.
The purpose of conducting the environmental inventory and evaluation was to develop an understanding of the
existing physical opportunities and constraints of the corridor related to environmental resources. This
information was used to inform the alternatives screening process and help determine which alternatives had
physical limitations that could either eliminate an alternative from consideration or have an impact on an
alternative’s cost and/or public acceptance due to resource conflicts. The full environmental inventory and
evaluation is included in Appendix F.
The methods used to conduct the environmental inventory included a desktop review of existing information,
including existing geographic information system (GIS) data and available information from relevant agencies
(e.g., City of Fort Collins, US Fish and Wildlife Service). A field visit was not performed as part of the preliminary
environmental inventory. Mapping of the existing conditions within the study area is included in Appendix F.
A preliminary environmental evaluation of the potential project impacts was performed using the conceptual
design of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for several “priority” resources that were identified in the study
area. “Priority” resources are defined as the resources that could require avoidance or minimization of impacts
during design and/or resources that typically have lengthy environmental clearance process.
The following resources were identified as “priority” resources within the corridor:
Noise
Air Quality
Historic Resources
Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources/Section 4(f) Resources
Hazardous Materials
Wetlands/Other Waters of the US
A preliminary evaluation of priority resources revealed the following findings for each resource.
Noise
Noise sensitive receptors include exterior areas of frequent human use that can be disturbed by vehicle noise,
such as residential neighborhoods (FTA Category 2), and schools, parks or churches (FTA Category 3). Preliminary
review of the project corridor identified ten areas (Appendix F) with noise sensitive receptors adjacent to
Harmony Road. Harmony Road is already a major arterial corridor and generates substantial traffic noise. The
traffic expected to be added and/or changed by the LPA will be relatively minor and is not likely to have a major
effect on the corridor noise environment. For example, doubling the number of cars would increase noise levels
by three decibels, which would be barely noticeable to most people. However, a detailed noise analysis will be
completed during the NEPA study to identify specific noise impacts and identify minimization, avoidance or
abatement measures to reduce noise impacts.
440 of 465
51
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Air Quality
The Fort Collins metropolitan area has a couple of air quality challenges: the area is classified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an attainment/maintenance area for carbon monoxide, and is also
within the Denver regional non‐attainment area for ozone. Automobiles are major sources of these air pollutant
emissions. Increasing the volumes of vehicles or miles traveled can increase emissions of carbon monoxide and
ozone precursors, but improved vehicular progression (reduced delay) through congested areas can reduce or
offset those increases. Improvement projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas, such as the Preferred
Alternative, must be examined for air quality impacts under EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule, which is
done as part of the regional transportation planning process. Projects that reduce delays at intersections or
improve vehicle speeds often have a side benefit of also reducing tailpipe emissions. The LPA is expected to
increase total miles of travel in the corridor by approximately 5 percent over No Action, but to the positive,
corridor crossing time would decrease by approximately 13 percent and average corridor vehicle speeds would
increase by approximately 17 percent. These improvements should reduce tailpipe emissions on the whole.
During subsequent NEPA study of this project, the proposed improvements will be evaluated through the
regional conformity process and travel demand modeling. Local air quality may need to be evaluated through a
“hot‐spot” analysis. Through these analyses, it must be demonstrated that the air quality requirements can be
achieved prior to implementation of the LPA.
Historic Resources
Seven properties have been identified along the corridor that are designated historic resources or potentially
eligible for historic designation under the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section
106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings upon significant National Register of
Historic Places listed or eligible historic properties. These resources include the cemetery located in the
southeast corner of Harmony Road/McMurry Avenue, Harmony Store, Harmony School, Preston Farm, Harmony
House, a farmstead, and the Fairway Estates.
Based on the preliminary evaluation, the Harmony Store could be impacted by the conceptual design of the LPA.
Avoidance of historic and potentially‐historic properties was considered throughout all stages of the conceptual
design process. For instance, based on the knowledge that the Harmony School is designated as a Fort Collins
Landmark, the conceptual design of the LPA was modified to realign Harmony Road south of its current
alignment to avoid impacting this property.
Based on the assumption that the funding source for any future corridor project would be federal‐based, any
future NEPA process would require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, which requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of their undertakings upon significant NRHP‐listed or eligible historic properties. It is
recommended that avoidance and minimization of impacts to historic or potentially historic properties continue
to be considered during preliminary and final design of the Preferred Alternative.
Park and Recreation Resources/Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources
Four park and recreation resources were identified within the study area. These include the Hidden Cattails
Natural Area, Mason Trail, Power Trail Bike Trail, and Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Properties within the project
area that are publicly‐owned are afforded protection under Section 4(f) as defined in 23 Code of Federal
Regulations 774. A Section 4(f) resource is a property that functions or is designated as a significant publicly‐
owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site.
441 of 465
52
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Based on the preliminary evaluation, the Mason Trail and Power Trail Bike Trail could be impacted based on the
conceptual design of the LPA. These two trail resources would potentially require realignment in conjunction
with the project roadway improvements. Any future NEPA process will require field verification of all of the park
and recreational resource locations and boundaries. Also, a Section 4(f) evaluation would be required for any
publically‐owned resources impacted by implementation of the project.
Hazardous Materials
Nine sites with potential or known hazardous materials issues (e.g., leaking underground storage tanks, leaking
aboveground storage tanks, drycleaner facilities) were identified within the study area. Based on the cursory
evaluation, two of the nine sites with potential hazardous materials issues may be directly impacted based on
the conceptual design of the LPA. Any future NEPA process would typically require a formal hazardous materials
assessment, including a site verification, to identify any hazardous materials issues within the study area.
Wetlands/Other Waters of the US
Wetland resources are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Executive Order 11990
Protection of Wetlands. Two areas with wetlands (i.e., wetlands associated with Hidden Cattails Natural Area
and wetlands associated with Power Trail Bike Trail) were identified based on a review of available geographic
information systems (GIS) mapping data. Based on the preliminary evaluation, the wetlands located west of the
Power Trail Bike Trail could be impacted by the conceptual design of the LPA.
Any future NEPA process would typically require a formal wetland delineation to verify the accuracy of the
wetland resources identified through the GIS mapping data, and any additional wetlands associated with
roadside ditches and/or streams that could be present and affected by the implementation of the project.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands will continue to be considered during preliminary and final
design of the LPA.
Mitigation – Avoidance/Minimization
As for any project of this type, how project impacts will be mitigated is a crucial design element. In regards to
the roadway features of the LPA, there are two specific design elements included in the plan to reduce
environmental impacts:
To limit any potential widening impacts along Harmony Road between Shields Street and College
Avenue, the proposed cross‐sectional elements of this segment were developed such that the curb &
gutter along the existing outside edges of the roadway could remain in their current location. The cross‐
sectional elements include 11’ wide eastbound and westbound vehicle travel lanes, a 14’ raised median,
and 6’ bike lanes. At intersections, a 10’ left turn lane can be provided within the median such that a
resultant 4’ wide space can still provide some pedestrian refuge.
The Harmony School in the northeast corner of the Timberline Road intersection has played a significant
role in the history of the area and it is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. As such, an attempt was
made to design the Harmony Road improvements such that these improvements would be outside of
the Harmony School ROW.
As noted previously, the Timberline Road intersection is one of the intersections that will include a future bus
queue jump lane on both the north and south sides of the street. As such, the roadway cross‐section at this
intersection is wider than the typical cross‐section, thereby requiring more space than some locations.
442 of 465
53
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
To mitigate ROW impacts, Harmony Road has been realigned towards the south as it proceeds through the
Timberline Road intersection. As can be imagined, there is a limit to how much realignment can occur without
starting to impact properties on the south side of Harmony Road. The realignment has been designed to
balance the roadway between existing buildings.
Additionally, some cross‐sectional dimensions have been modified to limit these impacts. Eastbound and
westbound travel lanes have been reduced to an 11’ width, with the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes
being reduced to 10’.
During the preliminary design process, ROW data that is more detailed than what was used for this project
should be obtained and verified so that the realignment of Harmony Road can be minimized to the extent
possible to limit impacts to adjoining property owners and to still provide a roadway cross‐section that meets
the needs of the traveling public.
443 of 465
54
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Cost Estimates
The typical cross‐sections for two primary segments of the Harmony Road corridor are represented on Figure
22. These typical cross‐sections represent the basic intent of each segment of the project corridor, recognizing
that minor modifications may need to be made during the preliminary design phase for special circumstances.
Figure 22. LPA Typical Mid-Block Cross-Sections
These typical cross‐sections were used to develop the conceptual roadway design plans shown in Appendix H.
Project costs were estimated by quantifying major roadway design elements such as curb & gutter, asphalt,
material removals, traffic signalization, landscaping, etc. Additional items that affect project costs, but that
cannot be quantified at this time are added to the estimates on a percentage of construction cost basis. Detailed
project cost estimates for eight project segments are included in Appendix H. The eight estimates are
summarized in the following eight segments:
1. Shields Street to the east side of College Avenue
2. East side of College Avenue to the west side of Lemay Avenue
3. Lemay Avenue intersection (queue jump location)
4. East side of Lemay Avenue to the west side of Timberline Road
5. Timberline Road intersection (queue jump location)
6. East side of Timberline Road to west side of Ziegler Road
7. Ziegler Road intersection (queue jump location)
8. East side of Ziegler Road to I‐25
444 of 465
55
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
There is a benefit to the City’s planning process to summarize project costs in a different manner, however. For
example, the City may choose to install certain project elements over several segments, but without completing
all design elements in that segment. As such, project costs are summarized below in the four main travel mode
categories: 1) roadway, 2) bike, 3) pedestrian, and 4) transit. The information in Table 6 summarizes these costs
for the entire project corridor (rounded for planning purposes).
Table 6. Summary Project Costs by Travel Mode
Cost Estimate Elements Approximate Quantity
Approximate Cost
(2013 $)
Roadway
Construction Elements (Minus Queue Jump Intersections)
‐ Removals
‐ Earthwork
‐ Asphalt
‐ Curb & Gutter
‐ Drainage
‐ Utilities
‐ Signing & Striping
‐ Traffic Signalization
‐ Lighting
‐ Construction Traffic Control
Several Items & Unit Types
35,345 Cubic Yards
10,610 Tons
65,200 Lineal Feet
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
Varies by Intersection
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
83,000
495,000
1,198,000
777,000
631,000
405,000
292,000
686,000
584,000
1,460,000
Landscaped Medians 514,250 Square Feet $ 4,688,000
Right‐of‐Way 10,000 Square Feet $ 254,000
Subtotal = $ 11,553,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 3,696,960
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 1,617,420
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 16,867,380
Transit
56
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
5. Implementation Plan
Implementation of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) can take several forms relative to the sequence of
construction of the physical infrastructure and the introduction of the operational aspects of the Enhanced Bus
service. Since it is not likely that the City can construct the entire LPA at one time, a phased implementation
approach is recommended. The implementation plan is influenced by the needs of the bus service, lead time for
vehicle purchases, and by the construction of roadway facilities to support the Enhanced Bus service.
Phasing Options
Three phasing options could be used to construct the physical elements of the LPA when considering the overall
length of the project corridor, the differing roadway characteristics along the corridor, and the proposed cross‐
sectional elements of the LPA. These methods include a Segment‐by‐Segment Approach, a Congested Areas
Approach, and a Sequential Corridor Element Approach. The three phasing options are described below.
Option 1: Segment-by-Segment Approach
The cross‐sectional elements of the LPA can be constructed in a segment‐by‐segment, linear fashion. The City
could chose to construct the LPA in this way to build upon the relatively recent roadway construction (and on
upcoming construction) along Harmony Road that could construct the median, bike lane buffers, transit stations,
etc. in pre‐determined, one‐mile (+/‐) segments, potentially between major intersections. This approach has two
basic advantages:
All of the construction within a bounded segment can be completed at the same time, thereby limiting
construction interruptions and overall construction time for the traveling public (“Is construction ever
going to be finished?” factor)
If constructed in a west to east manner, construction can be completed in the more densely populated
areas first, followed by those segments that are more rural in nature regardless of the level of
congestion that may exist in any one segment
Main Disadvantage: Beginning of the Enhanced Bus service relies on completion of construction in all corridor
segments.
Potential Sequence Options if this Approach is Pursued
Option 1a: West to East Sequence – This option would construct the LPA beginning at Shields Street and
proceed towards I‐25. Beginning construction of the LPA in the segment from Shields Street to College Avenue
has two benefits:
1) This segment has the least amount of new infrastructure required of any segment. As such, it would be
the least expensive segment to construct (estimated as $4.8 million).
2) Construction issues related to the installation of the green, epoxy pavement marking for the bike lanes
could be evaluated on the most western segment initially and the selection of this method for
highlighting the bike lanes could be confirmed for the remainder of the corridor.
Construction of the remaining segments from College Avenue to Lemay, Lemay to Timberline, etc. can progress
in approximate one‐mile segments to address the LPA improvements in the more densely‐populated areas of
Fort Collins first.
Of note, while these segments are identified between major intersecting streets, construction should include
each of the major intersections in any one segment so that the entire intersection is constructed at one time.
446 of 465
57
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Option 1b: Least Expensive to Most Expensive Sequence – Under this option the City would begin with the least
expensive segment (Shields Street to College Avenue again) and progress to the more expensive segments so
that lessons learned during the construction process can be of value to the next segment. If this option is used,
the progression of constructed segments would be:
Table 7. Potential Sequencing and Costs by Corridor Segment (Excluding Bus Costs)
Sequence Corridor Segment Approximate Cost
1 Shields Street to College Avenue $4.83
2 Timberline Road to Ziegler Road1 $8.61M
3 College Avenue to Lemay Avenue $10.10M
4 Lemay Avenue to Timberline Road1 $11.15M
5 Ziegler Road to I‐25 $14.94M
1 As noted in the LPA description, the Harmony Road/Timberline Road intersection is proposed to be realigned to the south
to avoid the historic Harmony School. As such, construction at this intersection is likely the most expensive roadway
component of the project. Sequence 2 and 4 could be interchangeable depending upon which segment the intersection
reconstruction is coupled with.
Option 2: Congested Areas Approach
Corridor congestion is typically confined to, or influenced by, the operation of intersections. Traffic signals, for
example, require vehicles for any one movement to stop so that another movement can have the opportunity to
proceed through the intersection. This type of intersection traffic control inherently causes congestion and long
vehicle queues during the peak travel times.
This approach would “fix” problem intersections first by constructing the 2035 LPA improvements so as to
provide an optimal operating experience as quickly as possible. This approach would also be the opportunity to
install the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes, lanes that require additional roadway width at three critical
intersections along Harmony Road: 1) Lemay Avenue, 2) Timberline Avenue, and 3) Ziegler Road.
Once construction is completed at the most congested locations, other improvements that are required
between intersections could proceed. These enhancements would include all of the physical cross‐sectional
roadway needs and the operational components of the Enhanced Bus System.
Main Disadvantage: LPA construction is completed in a disjointed fashion.
Potential Sequence if this Approach is Pursued
Reconstruct Queue Jump Intersections – Complete the reconstruction of the Lemay Avenue, Timberline
Road (including realignment of Harmony Road to the south), and Ziegler Road intersections to include
2035 capacity improvements and the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes as a necessary improvement for
good Enhanced Bus service
Construct Bus Stations and Bus Stops – Construct all of the proposed bus stations and stops. Construct
ancillary improvements to provide good access to/from the stations and stops, i.e., complete the LPA
sidewalk connections where necessary and construct the pedestrian grade‐separations
Begin Enhanced Bus Operation – Procure new/spare vehicles during construction completion of the bus
stations and stops and begin operation of Enhanced Bus service
447 of 465
58
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Improve Roadway Segments and Other Intersections – Complete the LPA improvements along corridor
segments based on projected 2035 daily traffic volumes. Improvements would include all cross‐sectional
elements such as roadway widening, medians, drainage facilities, bike lanes, channelizing islands, utility
modifications, etc.:
• Ziegler Road to I‐25
• Lemay Avenue to Timberline Road
• Timberline Road to Ziegler Road
• College Avenue to Lemay Avenue
• Shields Street to College Avenue
Apply green, epoxy pavement markings ‐ installation of the green, epoxy pavement marking in the bike
lanes would need to wait until at least several continuous segments have been constructed to reduce
consistency confusion.
Option 3: Corridor Element Approach
A corridor element approach to implementing the LPA would construct certain corridor elements in a layered
way so that the Enhanced Bus service could be implemented as quickly as possible while also providing
amenities for other modal users before fully completing all of the roadway cross‐sectional elements.
For example, the likely first step would be to construct the bus queue jump areas at the Lemay Avenue,
Timberline Road (including realignment of Harmony Road to the south), and Ziegler Road intersections, followed
by construction of all of the bus stations. These two improvements would allow the Enhanced Bus service to
begin without requiring the installation of medians, the buffered bike lanes, or other roadway elements.
The benefit to this approach is that the Enhanced Bus system can become operational more quickly than other
approaches since the Enhanced Bus system still uses typical general purpose lanes along Harmony Road.
Main Disadvantage: This approach would construct sequential elements over time throughout the entire
corridor – motorists would be continually impacted by construction activities throughout the entire 5‐mile
project corridor, potentially over numerous years.
Potential Sequence if this Approach is Pursued
Reconstruct Queue Jump Intersections – Complete the reconstruction of the Lemay Avenue, Timberline
Road (including the realignment of Harmony Road), and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035
capacity improvements and the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes as a necessary improvement for good
Enhanced Bus service
Construct Bus Stations and Bus Stops – Construct all of the proposed bus stations and stops. Construct
ancillary improvements to provide good access to/from the stations and stops, i.e., complete the LPA
sidewalk connections where necessary and construct the pedestrian grade‐separations
Begin Enhanced Bus Operation – Procure new/spare vehicles during construction completion of the bus
stations and stops and begin operation of Enhanced Bus service
Complete Cross‐Sectional Elements – Construct the remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements such as
any roadway widening, medians, drainage facilities, bike lanes, channelizing islands, utility
modifications, etc.; include side street improvements
Install green, epoxy pavement marking – Apply green epoxy in bike lanes as a last construction item for
consistency purposes
448 of 465
59
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Implementation Considerations
Each of the phasing options described above are influenced by other factors that are described in the following
sections.
LPA Design
It is recommended that the City design the entire corridor to ensure that each phase fits appropriately within
the context of the entire project. This will help to minimize or ideally avoid reconstruction in later phases. While
completing design for the entire corridor will require a reasonably sized budget outlay at the beginning, it will
pay benefits throughout the life of the LPA construction by having a designed roadway for the ultimate LPA
system. The initial design efforts could also include an initial phase or two that could be part of the first
construction bidding package(s). Considerations when completing design are described below.
ROW Impacts
One of the benefits of completing the design of the entire LPA first (rather than designing in segments) is that
all of the ROW impacts can be verified at the start of the project. The ROW acquisition process can then begin
early in the project and help the project move forward in a timelier manner including preservation of ROW on
properties that are currently undeveloped.
Identifying ROW acquisitions during the initial design does not mean that all of the ROW would need to be
purchased at the same time, however. Properties could still be purchased when needed.
Environmental Inventory and Mitigation
Another benefit to completing the design of the entire corridor at one time is that environmental resources can
be inventoried and impacts identified. Impacted areas can be further analyzed during the design process to
minimize, avoid, and mitigate impacts as feasible. If federal funding is obtained for any part of the corridor at
any time, there would be benefits to having all of the environmental resources inventoried, and impacts and
mitigation understood so that the construction process can move forward smoothly regardless of the phasing or
timing of the improvements. If the project phases begin to stretch over quite a few years, it is likely that only an
update to the environmental documentation would be required. Once again, there should be benefits to the City
in conducting these investigations up front and on a larger scale than in a piecemeal fashion for any number of
project phases.
Utility Impacts
Completing the design of the entire LPA would enable the City to identify all utility impacts associated with the
LPA. Since some utilities are very longitudinal in nature and are not confined to any one segment of the corridor,
having a plan in place to modify or relocate utilities where necessary will provide long‐range benefits to the
project related to timing, coordination and cost implications. Discussions with irrigation companies related to
realignment or enclosure of existing ditches can begin early in the project to help reduce delays.
Enhanced Bus Implementation
The implementation of Enhanced Bus service along Harmony Road will require several steps beyond the
construction of the physical roadway elements:
449 of 465
60
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Finalize the Operating Plan and Vehicle Type
Transfort has not yet determined whether Harmony Road service will be operated as an extension of MAX BRT
service or as a separate route and, if it will operate as a separate route, whether it would have a unique identity.
Whether service is operated as an extension of the MAX BRT service or as a separate route, three new buses will
be required. Additionally, a spare bus will be required unless Transfort’s existing spare ratio is sufficient to cover
the needs of Harmony Road service. The decision on whether or not to brand the Harmony Road service
uniquely could have an impact on the type of vehicle that is used and, as a result, this decision will need to be
made before the procurement of new vehicles can begin.
Procure Vehicles
Vehicle acquisition can take up to 24 months for regular transit buses, and sometimes longer for more
specialized BRT vehicles. However, the acquisition timeline can possibly be shortened if Transfort can piggy‐back
onto an existing order – either one of its own (of MAX BRT vehicles for example), or that of another transit
provider. Because of the time required, vehicle procurement activities should start as quickly as possible after
the operating plan and vehicle type have been determined and funding commitments have been secured.
Develop Schedules and Broadcast Public Information
Transfort will need to develop public timetables as well as driver and vehicle schedules. This could be done
concurrently with Transfort’s regular service change process, with service most likely implemented as part of a
regular schedule change. Public information (schedule brochures, and updated system map, etc.) will also need
to be updated.
Develop and Implement Marketing Plan for the New Service
In the months leading up to implementation, Transfort will also need to develop a marketing plan for the new
service – one that can begin with basic information once funding has been secured, followed by a buildup to
higher levels of information as the implementation date draws nearer.
Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District Creation
The City may consider the development of an overlay district for the Harmony Road corridor to facilitate the
types of development and redevelopment that will both benefit and drive the success of the Enhanced Bus
system.
450 of 465
61
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Recommended Implementation Plan
The preceding sections outlined several project implementation approaches as well as considerations that
influence the overall procedure, design, procurement, and construction sequence to construct and operate the
recommended LPA
This section synthesizes the information in the preceding sections into a recommended implementation plan.
More detail on the implementation plan is included in Table 8, but in general, the overarching approach can be
summarized as a division of the LPA into Immediate, Short‐Term, and Long‐Range projects, a division that
recognizes the most important desires of the community, and one that strives to limit throw‐away project costs.
The improvements needed to realize the LPA likely cannot be constructed at the same time. As such, an
implementation plan has been developed to minimize throw‐away costs, expedite high priority improvements,
and advance the capital projects needed to begin Enhanced Bus service. The City should work with private
development when possible to preserve ROW, construct missing sidewalks, install bus shelters and amenities,
etc., that are adjacent to the development.
The following table summarizes the recommended implementation plan (which generally follows Options 1 & 3,
i.e., partially layered, partially sequential) in Immediate, Short‐Term and Long‐Range timeframes. A description
of the plan element, the responsible party, and the approximate cost for the individual elements are included
for each of these timeframes.
Table 8. Recommended Implementation Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Immediate Improvements
LPA Design
Complete the design of vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle elements
Conduct environmental resource inventory; develop
mitigation plans for impacted areas
Identify ROW impacts; prepare ROW plans; start
ROW acquisition process
Identify public and private utility conflicts; prepare
modification plans
Engineering and
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
$3.50M
(8% of estimated total
project cost)
Finalize the Operating Plan & Determine Vehicle Type
and other Requirements
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
staff
Create a Transit‐Oriented Development Overlay District
FC Moves/
Planning Services
Completed by FC Moves
& Planning Services staffs
Revise corridor striping to create the bike lane buffer;
install green epoxy paint in bike lanes
Engineering $0.24M
Construct missing sidewalks and neighborhood
connections
Engineering $0.61M
451 of 465
62
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Construct landscaped medians Engineering $6.47M
Construct Mason Trail and Power Trail pedestrian grade‐
separations
Engineering $5.52M
Short‐Term Improvements
Identify and Secure Funding for Vehicle Procurement;
Begin Process to Procure Vehicles
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Develop Enhanced Bus Operating Schedules and Begin
Public Information Program
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Reconstruct the Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road
(including realignment of Harmony Road to the south),
and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035 capacity
improvements and Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes
Engineering
Lemay Avenue
Intersection: $3.00M
Timberline Road
Intersection: $4.01M
Ziegler Road
Intersection: $2.51M
Construct the Bus Stations and Bus Stops Engineering $4.02M
Finalize and Implement the Marketing Plan for the
Enhanced Bus Service
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Purchase necessary buses Transfort $2.51M
Begin Enhanced Bus Service
Long‐Range Improvements
Construct remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements
sequentially in a west to east manner. Major design
elements would include:
Roadway widening or narrower to match the
LPA cross‐sections (including irrigation ditch
enclosures where needed)
Intersection capacity improvements including
channelizing islands
Traffic signal modifications
Drainage modifications or new systems
Utility modifications
Engineering $9.47M
Construct remaining pedestrian grade‐separations at:
Between Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue
Adjacent University of Colorado Health
Harmony Campus
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
Harmony Transfer Center
63
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Funding Strategies
Funds for multimodal projects such as the Harmony Road ETC can be provided through a variety of sources
which typically consist of a combination of federal, state, and local public funds, and sometimes non‐
governmental funds. The following sections describe funding sources that could potentially be used to fund
Harmony Road infrastructure improvements and Enhanced Bus service.
Federal Funding
With Harmony Road designated as a Regionally Significant Corridor (RSC) by the NFRMPO, projects along the
corridor are potentially eligible to receive federal funding through the MPO.
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds (CMAQ)
The CMAQ program, which is jointly administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), provides funding to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies to invest in
projects that reduce air pollution in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(nonattainment areas), which includes Fort Collins. CMAQ funds can be used for a wide variety of transit uses,
including programs to improve public transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities, Employee Trip Reduction
(ETR) programs, traffic–flow improvements that reduce emissions, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, park‐and‐ride
facilities, and programs to restrict vehicle use in areas of emission concentration. CMAQ funds can be used for
up to 88.5% of capital costs. In the Fort Collins area, CMAQ funds are allocated by NFRMPO, and projects
prioritized based on the reductions in ozone that they would produce. For FY 2012 to 2015, NFRMPO has
programmed a total of $8.4 million in CMAQ funding.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
FHWA’s Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) provides funding for programs and projects defined as
transportation alternatives, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, infrastructure projects to improve non‐
driving access to public transportation, environmental mitigation, recreational trails, and safe routes to school
projects. TAP was authorized under MAP‐21; its predecessor was the Transportation Enhancements program.
FHWA Transportation Mobility Program Funds
The Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Mobility Program (TMP), which replaced the former
Surface Transportation Program (STP), is a “flexible funding” source that allows states to shift up to 20% of its
TMP funds to other uses, including the FTA funding programs described above. In Colorado, CDOT, which
administers state highway spending, determines the amount of funds to be “flexed” to other uses.
FTA Funds
Since the passage of MAP‐21, the major sources of urban federal transit funding for bus services are:
5
FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants
FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds (CMAQ)
FHWA Transportation Mobility Program (TMP)
5 One key element of these new programs is that there is not an equivalent to the former FTA Section 5309 Buses and
Bus‐Related Equipment and Facilities program through which Congress historically earmarked funds for a variety of
projects including Enhanced Bus services.
453 of 465
64
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
FTA Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Funds
FTA Section 5307 provides funding for transit capital and
transportation‐related planning, and for smaller transit systems
such as Transfort, operating assistance. In urbanized areas with
populations of 200,000 or more, which includes the Fort
Collins/Loveland urbanized area, these funds are apportioned by a
formula based on a number of population and service‐based
factors.
Transfort currently receives 5307 funds, and will continue to
receive them with or without Harmony Road Enhanced Bus
service.
6
Thus, while FTA Section 5307 funds could be used to
develop Harmony Road service, they would not represent a new
source of funding.
FTA Section 5309 New Starts Funds
The FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program includes “Small Starts”
and “Very Small Starts” components that can be used to fund
smaller scale BRT and Enhanced Bus projects (Small Starts funding
is the largest source of funding for MAX service). However, there
are a number of eligibility requirements for each program, as listed
to the right. Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service would fail to
meet the eligibility requirement in a number of respects (minimum
ridership, minimum service frequencies, unique branding, and/or
transit signal priority), and, thus, would not be eligible for funding
under either of these programs.
State Funding
Currently, the only source of state transit funding is the “Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery (FASTER) program. This program provides funding for transportation projects through
vehicle registration fees, with a portion is set aside for transit purposes:
A Local share for “local transit grants”
A Statewide share to be used “for the planning, designing, engineering, acquisition, installation,
construction, repair, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, or administration of transit‐related
projects, including, but not limited to, designated bicycle or pedestrian lanes of highway and
infrastructure needed to integrate different transportation modes within a multimodal transportation
system, that enhance the safety of state highways for transit users”
These funds can be used for any items defined as capital expenses by the FTA, which would include all capital
elements of Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service, and can fund up to 80% of a project’s total cost. For FY 2014
and 2015, CDOT anticipates being able to offer $5 million for local transit projects and approximately $9 million
for statewide and interregional projects.
6 Since these funds are allocated based on a formula that includes the amount of service provided, the development of
new service would result in an increase in FTA Section 5307 funds. However, the increase would be relatively small and
would represent the proportional increase in Transfort service versus the rest of the country.
Very Small Starts Eligibility Requirements:
Transit Stations
Signal Priority/Pre‐emption (for
Bus/LRT)
Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles
Special Branding of Service
Frequent Service ‐ 10 min peak/15
min off peak
Service offered at least 14 hours per
day
Existing corridor ridership exceeding
3,000/day
Less than $50 million total cost
Less than $3 million per mile
(excluding vehicles)
65
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Senate Bill 48 may provide another funding opportunity. This bill, which was signed into law in April 2013,
enables cities and counties to flex Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) dollars to transit, multi‐modal, bicycle and
pedestrian projects. The HUTF is funded through revenues raised from statewide gas tax, vehicle registration
fees, license fees and user fees. Historically these funds have been restricted to highway projects. With the
passage of the FASTER legislation in 2009, CDOT was authorized to expend HUTF revenues on transit and other
multi‐modal investments. This bill amends the original HUTF language to provide cities and counties the same
flexibility to spend HUTF dollars on transit and other multi‐modal projects.
Local Sources
Throughout Colorado, local funds provide the major source of funding for capital infrastructure as well as transit
operations. This is the case in Fort Collins, where the City provides approximately 70% of Transfort’s operating
expenses, and will provide over $7 million in local funding toward the capital costs of MAX service. In a similar
manner, and unless new sources of funds are developed, it is likely that the City would need to provide most of
the funding for operations, plus a local contribution to capital costs.
New Sources
As part of the development of its Strategic Operating Plan, Transfort identified a number of potential new
funding sources, which included:
A 0.1 to 0.25% dedicated sales tax
An $8 Transit Utility Fee that would be assessed on all utility accounts
A new (higher) negotiated fee with Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) and
potentially with other partners
A special assessment district in which a per household or square foot charge would be assessed on
properties within a special improvement district “identified as receiving a direct and unique "benefit"
from a public project,” which would most likely include MAX BRT, but could also include Harmony Road
To date, the City has not moved forward on any of these proposals. However, if it were to do so, the additional
revenues that would be generated could potential funds, at least in part, for both operating and capital costs for
Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service.
Summary
As with most transportation improvement projects, it is likely that Harmony Road infrastructure improvements
and Enhanced Bus service would need to be funded through a number of different sources. The most likely of
these would be:
Federal
• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
• Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds
• Transportation Mobility Program (TMP) funds
State
• FASTER funds
• HUTF funds
Local
• Additional City General Funds
455 of 465
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
connecting and enhancing communities
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 | Centennial, CO 80111 | tel 303.721.1440 | fax 303.721.0832
www.fhueng.com
456 of 465
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, Chairperson City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West
Bob Overbeck 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
July 2, 2013
(after the Regular Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Review:
• Executive Director’s Review of Agenda.
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Board on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Chairperson or Vice Chair. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Chairperson may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to Secretary
457 of 465
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Chairperson and Commissioners to follow-up on issues raised during
Citizen Participation.
6. Staff Reports.
7. Commissioner Reports.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Chairperson introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be
made by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Chairperson requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Board questions of staff on the item
! Board motion on the item
! Board discussion
! Final Board comments
! Board vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the
room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz
again at the end of the speaker’s time.
8. Resolution No. 060 of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Expressing the Board’s Intent Related
to the Use of Tax Protest Covenants in Connection with Redevelopment Projects for the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority. (staff: John Voss; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion)
Redevelopment agreements have generally required that an instrument be recorded to restrict the
protest of property tax valuations on the redeveloped property, a restriction that protects the interests
of the Authority by preventing the reduction of tax increment revenues. This restriction needs to be
waived because, in certain circumstances, it could cause certain tax revenues to be viewed as
“private payments,” which could then make the bonds in URA refinancing “taxable.” If taxable bonds
are issued, the URA’s borrowing cost increases. The proposed resolution will authorize the Executive
Director to modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants for the benefit of the URA.
9. Other Business.
10. Adjournment.
458 of 465
DATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: John Voss
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
AUTHORITY 8
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 060 of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Expressing the Board’s Intent Related to the Use of
Tax Protest Covenants in Connection with Redevelopment Projects for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Redevelopment agreements have generally required that an instrument be recorded to restrict the protest of property
tax valuations on the redeveloped property, a restriction that protects the interests of the Authority by preventing the
reduction of tax increment revenues. This restriction needs to be waived because, in certain circumstances, it could
cause certain tax revenues to be viewed as “private payments,” which could then make the bonds in URA refinancing
“taxable.” If taxable bonds are issued, the URA’s borrowing cost increases. The proposed resolution will authorize
the Executive Director to modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants for the benefit of the URA.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In the past the URA has used Tax Protest Covenants to protect the interest of the Authority by preventing the reduction
of tax increment revenues.
With one exception, the method used to financially support redevelopment in the North College Project Area is a lump
sum paid at the completion of the project. This method requires borrowing from the City until refinancing to external
investors becomes feasible. Most of the associated redevelopment agreements include a “no protest clause” for the
purpose of protecting the URA’s ability to repay loans.
However, the current language in the “no protest covenant” potentially affects the taxability of the bonds, changing
them from tax exempt to taxable. This makes refinancing more expensive.
The proposed Resolution will authorize the Executive Director to modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants, as needed,
to benefit the URA. The Resolution directs staff to negotiate terms in future Tax Protest Covenants that protects the
URA without negatively impacting the tax status of future or existing URA bonds.
The “no protest covenant” is not unique to agreements in the North College Project Area; it also exists in the Summit
(Capstone) agreement, which will likely be refinanced in the future. These and other future agreements will include
a provision allowing the Executive Director to waive that covenant when it benefits the URA.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Resolution will allow the North College refinancing to be done at a more affordable interest rate. The
URA’s ability to repay their loan obligations is not expected to be significantly affected by a taxpayer successfully
protesting their property tax assessment in the North College Area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
459 of 465
1
1
Modifying Redevelopment Agreements
FC Urban Renewal Authority Board
July 2, 2013
2
No Protest Covenant
• Bars owners/developers from protesting their
property tax assessment
– Protects the URA who relies on preconstruction tax
estimates in the formation of Redevelopment Agreements
• In current form may result in a taxable financing
transaction
– Higher interest rates
– Higher costs to URA
ATTACHMENT 1
460 of 465
2
3
Agreements Affected by Covenant
• North College Marketplace, JAX and Kaufman
Robinson agreements have a covenant that needs to
be modified to be treated as tax exempt.
• The Summit (Capstone) agreement will need to be
modified, if intending to refinance down the road
• Future agreements will have a modified provision
allowing Executive Director to waive that covenant
when it benefits the URA
4
Modification of North College
Agreements
• Resolution authorizes the Executive Director to
modify and waive Tax Protest Covenants as needed
to benefit the URA
• May continue to use Tax Protest Covenants but
directs staff to negotiate terms in future Tax Protest
Covenants that protects the URA without negatively
impacting the tax status of future or existing URA
bonds
461 of 465
3
5
GOING FORWARD
Financial Support – Two Approaches
• Repay over time
– Preferred method
– Commit a percent of actual TIF collections, with a cap
– ‘No protest covenant’ is usually not needed – lower taxes
reduces the reimbursement owners receive
• Lump sum at completion of project
– Fall back method when other options are not viable
– Requires borrowing from City and/or External Investors
– Include ‘no protest clause’ AND the ability to waive this
administratively in the event of a refinance
462 of 465
RESOLUTION NO. 060
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
EXPRESSING THE BOARD’S INTENT
RELATED TO THE USE OF TAX PROTEST COVENANTS
IN CONNECTION WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
FOR THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority (the “Authority”) has previously approved various redevelopment agreements in the North
College Urban Renewal Area and, more recently, in the Midtown Urban Renewal Area, which have
provided for reimbursement of expenditures in connection with specified public improvements
constructed for the purpose of eradicating blight conditions in those areas (collectively, the
“Agreements”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreements have generally included a provision restricting the protest of
property tax valuations on the redeveloped property and requiring that an instrument establishing the
restriction be recorded in order to the protect the interests of the Authority by preventing the
reduction of the tax increment revenues that are generated by the redeveloped properties and used
to fund the Authority’s reimbursement obligations (a “Tax Protest Covenant”); and
WHEREAS, the Board has previously expressed a desire that the Agreements, and
redevelopment agreements in general, include a Tax Protest Covenant to reduce the risk to the
Authority in connection with reimbursements for redevelopment projects; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2013, the Authority authorized the issuance of certain tax-exempt
bonds (the “Bonds”) pursuant to Resolution No. 058 of the Board to refinance certain outstanding
obligations of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the Bonds be issued as tax-exempt obligations for federal tax
purposes in order to reduce the interest costs on the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, in order for the interest on the Bonds to be exempt from federal income taxes,
the Authority must comply with certain rules and regulations promulgated by the Internal Revenue
Service; and
WHEREAS, under such rules and regulations, restrictions on the protest of property tax
valuations may, in certain circumstances, cause the Authority’s bonds to be taxable, which would
increase the borrowing costs of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, in order to issue the Bonds on a tax-exempt basis, as well as to facilitate the
issuance of future tax-exempt bonds by the Authority, the Authority’s Executive Director has
determined that it would be advantageous to modify the Agreements so as to eliminate the Tax
Protest Covenant requirement, and to express the Board’s intent that Tax Protest Covenants for the
463 of 465
benefit of the Authority that have been recorded and that are effective as of the date of this
Resolution shall be waived and released, and shall no longer be in full force and effect; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the Executive Director has recommended that future Tax Protest
Covenants and redevelopment agreements be structured to maximize the protections for the
Authority without negatively impacting the tax-exempt status of existing or future Authority bonds;
and
WHEREAS, in light of the Board’s prior approvals of each of the Agreements containing a
Tax Protest Covenant, as well as the Board’s general expression of intent that Tax Protest Covenants
be included in redevelopment agreements presented for approval, the Executive Director has asked
the Board to take formal action to authorize him to make the modifications to the Agreements and
related instruments as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, it is the Board’s intent to authorize the Executive Director to make such
modifications and take such actions related to the Agreements as may be necessary in connection
with the issuance of the Bonds as tax-exempt obligations or future tax-exempt bonds of the
Authority.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY as follows:
Section 1. That the Board hereby expresses its intent that Tax Protest Covenants be
utilized by the Authority only in a manner that preserves the Authority’s ability to issue tax-exempt
bonds payable from tax increment revenues of the Authority.
Section 2. That the Board hereby authorizes the Executive Director to modify the
Agreements so as to eliminate or revise the Tax Protest Covenants, and to provide that any Tax
Protest Covenants recorded as of the date of this Resolution are waived and released, are of no
further force and effect and shall not be enforced by the Authority. The Board hereby further
authorizes the Executive Director to record in the real estate records of Larimer County, a notice that
such Tax Protest Covenants have been waived and released, are of no further force and effect, and
shall not be enforced by the Authority.
Section 3. That the Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to
negotiate terms of pending and future Tax Protest Covenants and redevelopment agreements so as
to maximize the protections for the Authority without negatively impacting the tax-exempt status
of outstanding Authority bonds or the ability of the Authority to issue tax-exempt bonds in the
future.
-2-
464 of 465
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort
Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 2nd day of July A.D. 2013.
____________________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
-3-
465 of 465
Small Starts Eligibility Requirements:
Substantial Transit Stations
Signal Priority/Pre‐emption (for
Bus/LRT)
Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles
Special Branding of Service
Frequent Service ‐ 10 min peak/15
min off peak
Service offered at least 14 hours per
day
454 of 465
Engineering $11.04M
452 of 465
Queue Jump Intersections (Lemay, Timberline & Ziegler) Numerous Items $ 7,520,000
Stations & Stops 17 Stations; 18 Stops $ 2,910,000
Buses 3 $ 2,505,000
Subtotal = $ 12,935,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate (Not on Buses) $ 3,337,600
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate (Not on Buses) $ 1,460,200
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 17,732,800
Bike
Buffered Bike Lane 4 Miles $ 80,000
Bike Lane w/o Buffer 6 Miles $ 90,000
Subtotal = $ 170,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 54,400
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 23,800
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 248,200
Pedestrian
Missing Sidewalk 13,650 Square Yard $ 444,000
Grade Separations 6 Each $ 12,000,000
Subtotal = $ 12,444,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 3,982,080
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 1,742,160
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 18,168,240
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST = $ 53,016,620
445 of 465
Same as TSM
Outside lanes
for bus/HOV
(one in each
direction)
BRT service (FRCC to HTC);
increased frequency
Interlined
BRT/HOV
Same as TSM
Outside lanes
for bus/HOV
(one in each
direction)
BRT service interlined with
MAX; increased frequency
1 All alternatives include: MAX BRT, College widening to 6 lanes south of Harmony, Timberline widening to 6 lanes north
of Harmony (including through the Harmony Road intersection).
2 Back street bike lanes, pedestrian intersection crossing improvements, and grade separated pedestrian crossings were
deemed to be needed and appropriate for all build alternatives; definition of these improvements was deferred to the
LPA refinement process.
417 of 465
407 of 465
Community Development
Neighborhood Services
Engineering
Streets
Traffic Operations
Utilities
City Manager’s Office
Economic Health
Natural Areas
And the following agencies:
North Front Range MPO
Town of Timnath
Larimer County
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
University of Colorado Health Systems
395 of 465
and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035 capacity
improvements and Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes
Engineering
Lemay Avenue
Intersection: $3.00M
Timberline Road
Intersection: $4.01M
Ziegler Road
Intersection: $2.51M
389 of 465