Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/21/2013 - 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 May 21, 2013 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring May 2013 as Mental Health Month. B. Friends of Preservation awards. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Recognition of the Cityworks 101 Class. 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. 28) 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 April 29 Adjourned Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 2013, appropriates $139,465, of which $57,571 is for 2013 Cultural Development and Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $9,842 for 2013 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $72,052 for 2013 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging Taxes for 2012 were estimated at $815,000; actual Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled $1,011,840 ($196,840 over estimate). In 2013, the Fort Collins CVB is due to receive $740,552 based on 2012 Lodging tax collections and prior year reserves. However, the CVB has already received $65,736 of the unanticipated $137,788 Lodging tax revenue in 2012 so only $72,052 is needed to be appropriated to the Fort Collins CVB. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2013 Amending Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013, and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, to Correct an Error in the Naming of the Annexation as “Hansen Annexation” by Renaming the Annexation “Hansen Farm Annexation.” In January and February of this year, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013 and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, all pertaining to the what was called the “Hansen Annexation.” This reference to the “Hansen Annexation” was in error because the reference should have been to “Hansen Farm” Annexation. The purpose of this Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 2013, is to correct that error. 9. First 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 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. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating General Fund Reserves 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 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. Page 4 11. First 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. 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. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code Related to the Service of a Civil Citation. In 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. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees. This Ordinance 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 Judges, 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. 14. First 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 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. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection Project Standards. This item 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 on going operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing or research projects. 16. First 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. 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 Page 5 system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through the budget process. This action is necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements. 17. Resolution 2013-046 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the February 25, 2013 Administrative Hearing Officer Approval of the 621 South Meldrum Street Project Development Plan. On February 13, 2013, an Administrative Hearing was held to consider approval of the 621 South Meldrum Street Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J). The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on February 25, 2013 to approve the proposed Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard, with two conditions. On March 19, 2013, an Amended Notice of Appeal was filed by Alan, Eric and Walter Skowron. On May 7, 2013, City Council voted 7 - 0 to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing either by considering evidence relevant to the Hearing Officer’s findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading or by failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. 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. 18. Resolution 2013-047 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds. 19. Resolution 2013-048 Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 906 East Stuart Street to Fort Collins Waldorf Education Association, Inc. for up to Two Years. Since August 2006, the City has leased 906 East Stuart to Fort Collins Waldorf Education Association, Inc., known as River Song Waldorf School. River Song Waldorf School continues to meet the national Community Development Block Grant Funding (“CDBG”) criteria by serving a majority (51% or more) of low-moderate income clients below 80% of the Area Median Income. This Resolution authorizes the lease of the property to River Song Waldorf School for an additional two years. 20. Resolution 2013-049 Authorizing the Execution of the First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. The Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) was established by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Town of Timnath to fund and implement regional stormwater improvements. Staff recommends approval of the first amendment to the IGA in order to: • Obtain approval of the member governments for the BBRSA to accept a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to fund the design and construction of the remaining projects; • Authorize the BBRSA to determine and make minor revisions to properties within the Service Area of the BBRSA by designating areas as “non-tributary areas”, and to grant fee credits to other areas within the Service Area; and • Establish a sunset provision such that upon completion of the Projects, payment of all debt incurred by the Authority for the construction of the Projects, and agreement among the Members as to any continuing obligation for operation and maintenance of any Authority projects, the BBRSA can be terminated. Page 6 21. Resolution 2013-050 Nominating Mayor Karen Weitkunat as a Candidate for Re-election to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. This Resolution formally endorses the nomination of Mayor Karen Weitkunat as a candidate to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. Mayor Weitkunat is an active participant and continues to represent the City well as a member of the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board. 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. PFA Wildland Fire 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. Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s March 21, 2013 Decision to Approve the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. (staff: Courtney Levingston, Joe Olson; 10 minute staff presentation; 2 hour discussion) On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi-family buildings, with a total of 57 units divided among one, two and three-bedroom apartments for a total of 97 bedrooms. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Zone District and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Page 7 On April 4, 2013, Joel Rovnak (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal, alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading when approving the Project Development Plan application. 27. Items Relating to the Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC. (Continued from April 23, 2013). (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Lindsay Ex, Dan Weinheimer; 15 minute staff presentation; 2-3 hour discussion) (Highlighted text indicates changes made to this Agenda Item Summary since 12 p.m., Monday, May 20) A. Resolution 2013-036 Approving an Amendment to the Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC (Options 1, 2 and 3). B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2013 Terminating the Moratorium Imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 with Respect to Oil and Gas Operations Conducted under an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC and Exempting Such Operations from the Prohibitions Contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code (Options 1, 2 and 3). On March 19, 2013, Council approved an Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to conduct oil and gas operation in the city limits. The terms of the Agreement ensure stringent public health and safety measures are in place through Best Management Practices (BMPs), which generally exceed current requirements mandated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), and provide strict controls on the release of methane gases and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Council also adopted on First Reading, Ordinance No. 057, 2013, by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson, absent: Poppaw), removing the Moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012, with respect to an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy. • Option #1- Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Resolution 2013-036 will further amend the Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to clarify that (1) no new drilling will occur in any plugged or abandoned well in the Fort Collins Field and that (2) all Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules to be effective August 1, 2013 will apply to any exploration and drilling activities in the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA), and (3) along the west and southern boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot set-back shall be required from any residential area in accordance with COGCC standards of measurement, and (4) the Amended Agreement must be approved by Council and in effect on or before executed by both parties on or before June 1, 2013. • Option #2 – Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Limit the Agreement to the Fort Collins Field by removing UDA from the Operator Agreement and prohibit re-entry into plugged and abandoned wells. While the Whereas clauses for Options #1 and #2 have changed substantially, the substance of the Operator Agreement in Options #1 and #2 is the same, with the exception that the Agreement needs to be executed by June 1 instead of June 15. • Option #3 – Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Resolution 2013-036 will further amend the Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to include some options suggested in Option #1 plus the following (1) certain portions of the Agreement apply to existing wells within the City limits of the Fort Collins Field , and that (2) will insure any wells drilled in the UDA from the initial drilling phase through completion will be required to have a $10,000,000 per occurrence policy that covers Pollution and Cleanup, and General Liability, and that (3) increased setbacks will be required in certain areas of the UDA, and that (4) the Amended Agreement must be approved by Council and take effect on or before June 1, 2013. 28. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. Page 8 29. Other Business. 30. 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. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, mental health is essential to everyone’s overall physical health and emotional well-being, but one in every four families is affected by a mental illness in a given year regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion or economic status; and WHEREAS, Colorado is ranked as the 18th most depressed state and has the 9th highest suicide rate in the United States; and WHEREAS, the vast majority of people in Colorado who have mental health disorders are not receiving the help they need, yet access to medication and treatment helps prevent individuals from ending up in emergency rooms, corrections facilities, from becoming homeless, and prevents suicide; and WHEREAS, Touchstone Health Partners and the City of Fort Collins Human Relations Commission together observe nationally recognized Mental Health Month to raise awareness and understanding of mental health and illness; and WHEREAS, indirect costs of mental illness in Larimer County total over $22 million per year; and WHEREAS, with appropriate care, people who have a mental illness can recover and lead full productive lives; and WHEREAS, comprehensive, community-based services that respond to individuals with mental health needs and their families are cost-effective and beneficial to consumers and to our community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim May 2013 as MENTAL HEALTH MONTH We also call upon the citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, businesses and schools to recommit our community to increasing awareness and understanding of mental health, and the need for appropriate and accessible services for all citizens. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the April 29 Adjourned Meeting. April 29, 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 Monday, April 29, 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. Continuance of Items Relating to the Foothills Mall to May 7, 2013. The following is the staff memorandum for these items. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has proposed that the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan be amended to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan, in connection with the furtherance of a proposed redevelopment of the Foothills Mall for the eradication of blight under the Plan. As required in connection with such an amendment, notice of a public hearing on the Plan amendment for April 29, 2013 was provided to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area, and to Larimer County, and was published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan. In addition, amendments to the Service Plan of the Foothills Metropolitan District related to the redevelopment of Foothills Mall have also been proposed. Notice of a public hearing for April 29, 2013 on the proposed amendments was published and mailed, as required by City policy. Staff is requesting that each of the two public hearings described in the notices and consideration of the related items be continued to May 7, 2013, to allow further time for development of the details of a related redevelopment and reimbursement agreement, as well as a related preliminary agreement with Larimer County. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Urban Renewal Plan Amendment The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board in September 2011, and ratified and reaffirmed February 2013. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the URA the opportunity to use tax increment financing (TIF) to remediate blighted 33 April 29, 2013 conditions through development and redevelopment. In July 2012, Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC (Owner), purchased Foothills Mall and adjacent property with the intent to complete a significant redevelopment. An Agreement to Negotiate was executed between the Owner and the URA in November 2012, and discussions with regard to the public financing package have been occurring since; one component of the package being TIF via the URA. In order to utilize TIF, City Council must first amend the existing Plan and create a TIF District. Once a TIF District is created, the URA is permitted to collect incremental tax revenue for a period of up to 25 years. Notice was mailed to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the Urban Renewal Area on March 29, 2013, and published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on March 29, 2013, that a public hearing would be held by the City Council on April 29, 2013, for the purpose of amending the Plan to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan, as well as other undertakings and activities in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S. In addition, required notice and an estimation of fiscal impacts was provided to Larimer County on January 25, 2013. Foothills Metropolitan District Service Plan Amendment In addition, to allow the use of the Foothills Metropolitan District (District) to raise revenues and incur debt in connection with the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement currently being prepared for City Council consideration on May 7, 2013, amendments to the Service Plan for the District are required. An initial Service Plan for the District was approved by the City Council on September 4, 2012, and the District was subsequently formed after approval by the voters in the District area. The initial Service Plan did not authorize the District to move forward to fund, build or finance improvements, with the expectation that approval of amendments would be proposed for Council consideration to the extent required to carry out the purposes of the District, in light of the specific redevelopment project plans and the related financing terms. Procedures for approval and amendment of metropolitan district service plans are set out in the City’s metropolitan district policy (adopted by the Council on July 15, 2008). In addition to published notice of a required public hearing, the City’s policy also requires that notice be mailed to all owners of property within the District service area. Notice of a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the District Service Plan scheduled for April 29, 2013, was published, and notices have been mailed to all owners of property within the District area as required in the City policy. Staff is requesting that each of the two public hearings described in the notices, and consideration of the related items, be continued to May 7, 2013, in order to allow further time for development of the details of a related redevelopment and reimbursement agreement, as well as a related preliminary agreement with Larimer County. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Continuation of the Public Hearings has no direct financial/economic. 34 April 29, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Continuation of the Public Hearings has no direct environmental impacts.” Mayor Weitkunat withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated this continuance will provide additional time for community input and allow staff to develop a complete package of responses to questions. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the continuance to May 7 does not allow enough time for community input. He opposed the business assistance package for the mall as a poor economic choice. Thomas Edwards, Fort Collins Bicycle Coalition, suggested having a bicycle valet in the Midtown area. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to continue the Public Hearing and Consideration of Amendments to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to Authorize the Use of Tax Increment Financing in the Foothills Mall Area of the Plan to May 7, 2013. Councilmember Cunniff stated this is the minimum amount of delay needed. Councilmember Poppaw encouraged staff to explore a date even further out. City Manager Atteberry replied staff has worked with the applicant who has indicated any date later than May 7 is problematic in terms of meeting commitments. Per feedback from Council, a great deal of information has been placed on the City’s web page and public outreach has begun in force. Councilmember Poppaw stated she has received comments from constituents indicating confusion with some of the language falsely suggesting District 2 is going to be taxed. She noted the issue is complicated and that this type of extreme misunderstanding is occurring with residents. She expressed concern regarding the fact that Council should be aiding citizens rather than meeting a timeline of a developer. City Manager Atteberry stated the replay of the Foothills Mall Work Session has run on Channel 14 more often than usual and reiterated that May 7 is as long as this item can be postponed. Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested citizen misconceptions be directly addressed by staff at the May 7 hearing. Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern that not all of the citizen concerns can be resolved by May 7 and stated he would have difficulty supporting the project should that be the case. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff and Campana. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 35 April 29, 2013 Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to continue the Public Hearing and Consideration of Amendments to the Foothills Metropolitan District Service Plan Relating to the Foothills Mall to May 7, 2013. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the City would like to engage the County in discussions regarding working together on this Urban Renewal Authority project. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Campana and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No.068, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado, Adopted on First Reading The following is the staff memorandum for these items. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance conveys a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado (“PSCo”). The City of Fort Collins staff worked with PSCo over the past several months to determine the alignment of and mitigate the impacts for a new 16-inch high pressure gas transmission line within city limits. The project is designed and construction is expected to start in May 2013. Most of the City issues were addressed, and City Council approved easements in Natural Areas and adopted Resolution 2013-022 on March 19, 2013, directing the use of the payments from PSCo be used for natural areas and trails. There was continuing concern, however, about the proposed location of the pipeline in private property at the northwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street. Although this was primarily an issue of concern between the property owner and PSCo, the City expressed concern over the impacts on future commercial development at the site. At its March 19 meeting, City Council directed the City Manager to follow up with PSCo on this issue. Following several conversations with senior PSCo executives and project staff , they agreed in principle to relocate the pipeline within the Shields Street right-of-way if the City agreed to pay for any relocation of the approximately 2,000 feet of line adjacent to the property that may be necessary in the next fifteen years. This is a low-risk option, given the location of the pipeline in the Shields Street right of way. PSCo is redesigning the pipeline within the Shields Street right-of way. In order to document this agreement between the City and PSCo, staff recommends 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 36 April 29, 2013 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, McClelland Drive, Drake Road, and Timberline Road. PSCo is authorized in Section 6 of the City Code to construct, operate and maintain gas facilities within the public right-of-way. Much of this project’s pipeline will be located in the right-of-way. PSCo company policy encourages the use of undeveloped property if it is available, so they designed the line to veer west across Shields and into private property at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields. The owners of that property strongly objected and PSCo initiated eminent domain action to acquire an easement on the property. This action is primarily between PSCo and the property owners, but the City has an interest in the implementation of its Structure Plan, and the expected commercial development of the property. At the City’s request, PSCo agreed to amend the design to move the line away from the private property and into the right-of-way in this 2,000-foot stretch. However, PSCo asked that the City guarantee they will not have to relocate the line for fifteen years, with an extension of five years if the private property is not yet developed. This is an extremely low-risk possibility because of the location and depth of the line. That is the intent of this easement. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The approval of the easement will eliminate the impacts of the gas transmission line on future commercial development at the site on the northwest corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street (designated as a neighborhood shopping center). If the City requires the pipeline within the easement to be relocated within 15 years of installation, the relocation would be at the City’s expense. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed re-alignment for the project will avoid impacts to the private property and place the pipeline in the public right-of-way. PUBLIC OUTREACH Three open houses were held in Larimer County to share the overall plan with the public. A total of 3,409 property owners within 750 feet of the preferred and alternate pipeline routes within Fort Collins were notified of the meetings. Open houses were held as follows: • February 29, 2012 at the Walt Clark Middle School in Loveland from 4 to 7 pm. • March 8, 2012 at the Fort Collins Marriott in Fort Collins from 4 to 7 pm. • October 25, 2012 at the Lincoln Center in Fort Collins from 4 to 7 pm. 37 April 29, 2013 In addition, a West Main project website (www.xcelenergywestmainpipeline.com) was created to provide updated information on the project and related open houses.” Rick Richter, City Engineer, stated this item relates to a utility easement for Public Service Company within the Shields Street right-of-way. This easement will allow staff to resolve a question about the location of a new transmission line needed to replace an aging pipeline. Richter detailed the location of the new transmission line throughout the city and noted this easement is a fifteen year easement and it differs from other locations in the right-of-way in that, should the City request the relocation of that line within that fifteen years, it would be at the City’s cost. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, stated Public Service Company has been pursuing acquisition of the easement on the private property at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields via eminent domain and a hearing has been scheduled for May 14. She thanked Council for considering the item in order to allow resolution prior to that date. Councilmember Cunniff noted the Environmental Impacts section of the staff report does not address actual environmental impacts. Councilmember Troxell stated there have been a number of discussions relating to environmental impacts regarding this project and stated Xcel has given over $2 million to the City’s Natural Areas program in addition to the mitigation. Richter confirmed that information and added this shift to the right-of-way would eliminate surface damage if it is bored within the roadway. Councilmember Troxell expressed support for the item, particularly in light of the eminent domain issue. He commended the City Manager and staff for addressing the item with Xcel. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Ordinance No. 068, 2013, on First Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Horak thanked Councilmember Troxell for bringing this issue forward and commended staff for work on the item. Councilmember Cunniff agreed this is a better solution. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Campana, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, that the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney, City Manager, and other affected members of the City staff to discuss potential litigation and related legal issues as permitted under Section 2-31(A)(2) of the City Code. Councilmember Cunniff asked if public comment could be entertained regarding this item. City Attorney Roy replied the rules indicate each agenda item allows one opportunity for citizen input. 38 April 29, 2013 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Campana, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 39 DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Bev Gast Kelly DiMartino AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 2013, appropriates $139,465, of which $57,571 is for 2013 Cultural Development and Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $9,842 for 2013 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $72,052 for 2013 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging Taxes for 2012 were estimated at $815,000; actual Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled $1,011,840 ($196,840 over estimate). In 2013, the Fort Collins CVB is due to receive $740,552 based on 2012 Lodging tax collections and prior year reserves. However, the CVB has already received $65,736 of the unanticipated $137,788 Lodging tax revenue in 2012 so only $72,052 is needed to be appropriated to the Fort Collins CVB. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary - May 7, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: May 7, 2013 STAFF: Bev Gast Kelly DiMartino AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $139,465, of which $57,571 is for 2013 Cultural Development and Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $9,842 for 2013 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $72,052 for 2013 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging Taxes for 2012 were estimated at $815,000; actual Lodging Tax revenues collected equaled $1,011,840 ($196,840 over estimate). In 2013, the Fort Collins CVB is due to receive $740,552 based on 2012 Lodging tax collections and prior year reserves. However, the CVB has already received $65,736 of the unanticipated $137,788 Lodging tax revenue in 2012 so only $72,052 is needed to be appropriated to the Fort Collins CVB. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 25-244 of the City Code requires that 75% of the total lodging tax receipts are to be used for the promotion of convention and visitor activities and 25% for cultural development and programming activities. Actual revenue collected is appropriated based on this allocation formula and any excess revenue as well as budget savings are reserved by these activities in the General Fund balance. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Lodging Tax 2012 75% 25% Promote Convention Promote Cultural Development & Visitor Activities & Programming Convention & Visitors Bureau 70% Fort Fund (Tourism Programming) 5% Fort Fund (Cultural Development & Programming) 25% Total Unanticipated Lodging Tax 137,788 9,842 49,210 196,840 Unspent Appropriations -65,736 0 8,361 -57,375 Total 72,052 9,842 57,571 139,465 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. COPY COPY COPY May 7, 2013 -2- ITEM 15 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The City’s Cultural Resources Board reviews applications for Fort Fund and makes recommendations to the City Council. This fund supports events that provide a public benefit to the Fort Collins community, and promotes the utilization of public accommodations within the city. ORDINANCE NO. 066, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES, TOURISM PROGRAMMING, AND THE FORT COLLINS CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU WHEREAS, Section 25-244 of the City Code requires that lodging tax revenue is to be allocated as follows: 75% for the promotion of convention and visitor activities and 25% for cultural development and programming activities; and WHEREAS, at the end of 2012, a total of $1,011,840 in lodging tax revenues was collected and lapsed into the General Fund Reserves for lodging tax programs and activities; and WHEREAS, prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in the amount of $139,465 is to be appropriated for each of the lodging tax programs and activities as follows; and • Cultural Development and Programming $ 57,571 • Tourism Programming $ 9,842 • Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $ 72,052 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 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriation 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 General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to appropriate all funds allocated for Cultural Development and Programming, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. 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 General Fund the total sum of FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE DOLLARS ($57,571) for Cultural Development and Programming activities. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the total sum of NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY TWO DOLLARS ($9,842) for the Tourism Programming. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the total sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND FIFTY TWO DOLLARS ($72,052) for the Fort Collins Conventions and Visitors Bureau. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Paul Eckman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2013, Amending Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013, and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, to Correct an Error in the Naming of the Annexation as “Hansen Annexation” by Renaming the Annexation “Hansen Farm Annexation.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January and February of this year, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013 and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, all pertaining to the what was called the “Hansen Annexation.” This reference to the “Hansen Annexation” was in error because the reference should have been to “Hansen Farm” Annexation. The purpose of this Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 7, 2013, is to correct that error. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary - May 7, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: May 7, 2013 STAFF: Paul Eckman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2013 Amending Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013, and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, to Correct an Error in the Naming of the Annexation as “Hansen Annexation” by Renaming the Annexation “Hansen Farm Annexation.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January and February of this year, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013 and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, all pertaining to the what was called the “Hansen Annexation.” This reference to the “Hansen Annexation” was in error because the reference should have been to “Hansen Farm” Annexation. The purpose of this Ordinance is to correct that error. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 067, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING RESOLUTION 2013-001, ORDINANCE NO. 006, 2013, AND ORDINANCE NO. 007, 2013, TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE NAMING OF THE ANNEXATION AS “HANSEN ANNEXATION” BY RENAMING THE ANNEXATION “HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION” WHEREAS, on January 15, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-001 referring to the “Hansen Annexation” when the proper reference should have been “Hansen Farm Annexation”; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2013, the City Council passed on second reading Ordinance No. 006, 2013 and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, both of which ordinances incorrectly referred to the “Hansen Annexation”when the proper reference should have been “Hansen Farm Annexation”; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to correct the naming of the “Hansen Annexation” to its proper name which is “Hansen Farm Annexation”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That all references made in Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013, and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, to “Hansen Annexation” are hereby changed to refer to “Hansen Farm Annexation”. Section 2. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the zoning map in accordance with Section 1 of this Ordinance and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record this Ordinance with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder for the purpose of correcting the record at the Office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 3. That all other provisions contained in Resolution 2013-001, Ordinance No. 006, 2013, and Ordinance No. 007, 2013, shall remain in full force and effect. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich Timothy Wilder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT First 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Established by Council in 1994 with adoption of Chapter 14, Article V of the City Code, the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program is a critical financial program for encouraging the protection and revitalization of historic residential and commercial buildings, most notably within the downtown and Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods. Since 2000, $258,000 from City funding has leveraged $800,000 in private investment in 86 historic projects (Attachment 2). The Rehabilitation Loan Program is a revolving loan program. Owners of historic landmarks can apply for up to $7,500 in zero-interest loan funds for exterior rehabilitation of a property. Applicants receiving loans have up to two years to complete the rehabilitation work. Loans are repaid through the sale or transfer of the property. Upon repayment, the funds return to the program for further distribution. With a pool of over 10,000 potentially qualifying buildings and structures, the program is very popular with the public and the demand for funding grows every year. The City averages 8 applications a year. However, the backlog of historic rehabilitation projects appears to be growing as owners delayed home repair during the recession. In 2013, the City received 12 applications for loan funding in the amount of $66,000. Five applicants were awarded funding for a total of $26,400. These projects included asbestos siding abatement, casement window repair, porch restoration, and repair of a carved stone cornice. There were seven applications in 2013 that could not be funded, and several projects received only partial funds. Critical projects without funding included repair of windows on a historic farmhouse for its reuse as the Larimer County Child Advocacy Center, storm window installation for energy efficiency, roof replacement with wood shingles, chimney repairs to address lost bricks and damaged mortar, and others. Some property owners may not be able to afford to complete the work without City assistance. If the work is not completed, the historic structures would continue to deteriorate and some elements might need to be replaced rather than repaired in the future. The City’s two historic preservation incentive programs, the Design Assistance Program (DAP) and the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program, are sub-programs within the overall Historic Preservation Program. They are closely linked and work along different areas of the historic rehabilitation continuum. The DAP provides funds for the work of qualified professionals on the design of historic rehabilitation projects, while the loan program provides matching funds for construction of qualified rehabilitation projects. The programs are synergistic and ensure that historic preservation work is of a high quality, providing long-term preservation of historic resources. Both programs were funded in 2012 through KFCG – Other Community Priorities: Historic Preservation Programming. In the future, the May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 9 programs will be set up to draw from a combined pot of historic preservation incentive funds so that funding can be directed to the area of greatest community need. In 2012, the DAP did not have sufficient demand for expenditure of the entire KFCG allocation. Approximately $33,000 was remaining for the DAP after 2012. Rather than request a reappropriation back into the DAP, staff is requesting that $33,000 be funded from KCGG Other Community Priorities prior year reserves to be used to fund projects approved through the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program in 2013, which had demand that outstripped the available funding. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance would result in a one-time cost of $33,000 to the City. The request is for the appropriation of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created by the 2012 unspent DAP budget. The City funding would be matched by approximately $50,000 by owners of the historic properties. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Community and social sustainability is promoted by enhancing the quality, livability and attractiveness of our core neighborhoods. Reuse of historic buildings and greening existing buildings are effective tools for environmental stewardship. Many older buildings are remarkably energy efficient because of their site sensitivity, quality of construction, and use of passive heating and cooling, and can be retrofitted to meet current green standards without compromising historic character. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission voted 9-0 on April 10, 2013 to approve a request for additional funding to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Preservation Commission Minutes, April 10, 2013 2. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Brochure 3. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Funding Statistics ATTACHMENT 2 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Funding Statistics 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Applications Loan Applications and Awards by Year Submittals Awards 106 86 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Applications Awarded Total Loan Applications and Awards, 2001‐2013 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 Loan Funding and Leveraging by Year Loan $ Matching $ $258,182 $792,370 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 Amount Loaned Matching Funds Total Loan Funding and Leveraging, 2001‐2013 ORDINANCE NO. 069, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND TO SUPPORT THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM FOR 2013 WHEREAS, the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program (the “Landmark Program”) was established in 1994 and is a critical financial program for encouraging the protection and revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Program provides financial assistance to complete construction rehabilitation work such as asbestos siding abatement, casement window repair, porch restoration, roof and chimney repairs, and repair of carved stone cornice; and WHEREAS, rehabilitation loans provided to property owners are paid back to the City at the time of the sale or transfer of the benefitted property, and those funds are returned to the Landmark Program for further distribution; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Program is closely linked with the other historic preservation incentive sub-program, the Design Assistance Program or “DAP”, that provides funding assistance in the design of historic rehabilitation projects; and WHEREAS, both sub-programs were funded in 2012 under the Keep Fort Collins Great - Other Community Priorities fund (the “KFCG”) and are funded in 2013 and 2014 by KFCG; and WHEREAS, there is a backlog of historic rehabilitation projects proposed and the Landmark Program does not have sufficient funds to meet the application requests for funding assistance in 2013; and WHEREAS, the DAP had approximately $33,000 in unutilized funding available after 2012 that went back into KFCG Other Community Priorities reserves without being appropriated; and WHEREAS, the one-time request for KFCG Other Community Priorities reserves of $33,000 would be used in 2013 to fund projects approved through the Landmark Program and would be matched by approximately $50,000 by owners of the benefitted historic properties; 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 that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund the sum of THIRTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($33,000) to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Lawrence Pollack, Steve Catanach, Viriginia Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project Located on the Woodward Property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On April 2, 2013, Council adopted Ordinance No. 056, 2013, Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Fund a Reimbursement Reserve Fund in Connection with an Agreement between the City, Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Woodward, Inc., Regarding the Link-N-Green Development. Ordinance No. 056, 2013, provided that Woodward would advance up to $6.05 million to the City, to be repaid by Pledged Tax Increment Revenues (“TIF”) to fund certain public improvements, including right-of-way improvements and open space restoration, as well as the relocation of a power transmission line. Furthermore, in Ordinance No. 056, 2013, the City agreed to appropriate $2.272 million for a reimbursement to the reserve fund to ensure the adequate support for construction of the Improvements. Because the Woodward advance funds are not yet available, City staff is requesting the immediate appropriation of $1,297,080 from City reserves in order to allow the relocation of the transmission line to begin. The City funds will be reimbursed by the Woodward advance. On April 15, 2013, the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) with PRPA, which provided that the City of Fort Collins will pay for the relocation and installation of the 230/115kV transmission line that currently crosses the Woodward property (Attachment 1). Design plans resulted in placing one new transmission tower in the Williams Natural Area just south of the Mulberry/Lemay Avenue intersection and the removal of three transmission towers northwest of Mulberry; two in the Springer Natural Area and one at the Water Reclamation natural area. Ordinance No. 063, 2013, authorizing the necessary easements from the City, was adopted on second reading on May 7, 2013. Specifically, one pole will be added in the Williams Natural Area (reference pole #6, yellow line, Attachment 2). The general size of the pole will be approximately 100 to 125 feet tall and 3 to 5 feet in circumference at the base, depending upon the distance from pole #5. Placement will be approximately 150 feet south of the existing bike trail and approximately 60 feet west of the sidewalk that parallels south bound Lemay Avenue. Contingency placement will be known once the following items are specified: • Signal light/pole on the northwest corner of Mulberry and Lemay for the westbound traffic on Mulberry • Proposed restaurant placement at the southeast end of the Woodward Property • New bike trail route across Lemay. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The transmission line relocation is a critical path component of the redevelopment of the new Woodward site. Commitment from the City to PRPA is needed immediately so materials can be secured to complete the project and avoid the need and cost of temporary transmission lines. Staff is requesting an appropriation for $1,297,080 from the May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 10 General Fund Reserve. Additional appropriations will be forthcoming for the other portions of the project described above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board supported the proposed alignment at its March 13, 2013 meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Intergovernmental Agreement for the Design and Relocation of Platte River Power Authority Transmission Facilities, April 15, 2013 2. Context Map of Transmission Poles 3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, March 13, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 UDALL NATURAL AREA SPRINGER NATURAL AREA SPRINGER NATURAL AREA WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA Platte River Power Authority/Woodward Link-N-Greens Realignment on Springer and Williams NAs Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2013 Project Area Larimer County # Existing Poles # Proposed New Poles Proposed Alignment PRPA General Easement Area Existing PRPA Transmission Line City of Fort Collins Natural Areas µ 0 125 250 500 Feet ATTACHMENT 2 SPRINGER NATURAL AREA WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA SPRINGER NATURAL AREA Inset: Project Site Detail New Pole on Williams NA Existing Pole to be moved 10-20' to the west See Inset ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 076, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THE PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION LINE RELOCATION PROJECT LOCATED ON THE WOODWARD PROPERTY WHEREAS, per Ordinance No. 055, 2013, the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward Inc (“Woodward”) entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) that Woodward would advance up to $6.05 million to the City (the “Advance”) to fund certain public improvements, to be made on the former Link-N-Greens Golf Course (the “Woodward Site”); and WHEREAS, the improvements include right-of-way improvements, open space restoration, and the relocation and installation of a power transmission line that currently crosses the Woodward Site; and WHEREAS, the Advance will be repaid to Wooodward from pledged Downtown Development Authority tax increment revenues; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2013, the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) with the Platte River Power Authority (“PRPA”), which provides that the City will pay the cost of relocating and installing the transmission line (the “Project”) at an estimated cost of $1,297,080; and WHEREAS, the Project will result in one new transmission tower placed in a natural area just south of Mulberry Street and the removal of three transmission towers northwest of Mulberry Street in a natural area; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 063, 2013, authorizing the necessary easements from the City for the Project, was adopted on second reading on May 7, 2013; and WHEREAS, PRPA is currently designing the Project and estimates that design and construction of the Project will take approximately fourteen months; and WHEREAS, the Project is a critical path component of the redevelopment of the new Woodward Site and immediate action is necessary to avoid the need and cost of temporary transmission lines; and WHEREAS, the Advance is not yet available for use for the Project and consequently City staff has identified existing City revenues that may be made available to allow the Project expeditiously; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the City will be entitled to reimbursement from the Advance for the expenditure of the funds appropriated hereunder; 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 that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTY DOLLARS ($1,297,080) for the relocation and installation of a transmission line on the Woodward Site. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Beth Sowder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On February 19, 2013, City Council amended Chapter 4 of the City Code, decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. Staff identified the Code sections that were to remain criminal misdemeanors, and the rest of Chapter 4 was decriminalized, making those offenses civil infractions. Staff identified provisions that should remain criminal misdemeanors (i.e. ,primarily the cruelty to animals and dangerous animals sections). After further deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with animal control officers as a criminal misdemeanor and staff agrees with that recommendation. Staff believes that conduct rising to the level of interference with Animal Control Officers should be treated as a criminal misdemeanor offense. Staff recommends changing the violation of interference with animal control officers from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 4-196 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SO AS TO CHANGE THE VIOLATION OF INTERFERENCE WITH ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS FROM A CIVIL INFRACTION TO A CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013 which amended Chapter 4, Article II of the City Code decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals; and WHEREAS, interference with animal control officers was included within those offenses that were decriminalized; and WHEREAS, City staff believes that conduct rising to the level of interference with animal control officers should be treated as a criminal misdemeanor offense; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending changing the violation of interference with animal control officers from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to amend City Code Section 4-196 changing the violation of interference with animal control officers from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 4-196 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-196. Generally. Any person found guilty of violating any provision of this Chapter, except Sections 4-70, 4-74, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97,4-119, and 4-157, and 4-177 whether by acting in a manner declared to be unlawful or by failing to act as required, commits a civil infraction and is subject to the penalty provisions of Subsection 1-15(f). Any person who violates Sections 4-70, 4-74, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-119, or 4-157, or 4-177 commits a misdemeanor criminal offense and is subject to a penalty or imprisonment, costs and fees and any other orders imposed in accordance with § 1-15. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Beth Sowder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code Related to the Service of a Civil Citation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2006, the City decriminalized many of the nuisance codes and included the ability to issue civil citations immediately for repeat violations. Adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 2009 allowed an officer to immediately serve a civil citation to a responsible party specifically for violations of the Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits. At that time, the change inadvertently removed the ability to issue civil citations for any repeat civil infractions. This error was not immediately identified. Staff recommends amending City Code to provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil infractions. This would apply to any repeat civil infraction within a twelve (12) month period, with the fines becoming progressively higher for each additional repeated violation. This makes the process consistent for all civil infractions, not just for occupancy limit violations. Additionally, as staff has worked with residents about potential improvements regarding exterior property maintenance codes, it was identified that this change would be beneficial for more effective enforcement. Additionally, this Code change adds a provision to allow officers to immediately serve a civil citation of any civil infraction of the animal codes in Chapter 4 of the City Code. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There will not be any financial/economic impacts to the City. There could potentially be a financial/economic impact to anyone with repeat civil infractions because they may be issued a civil infraction which would assess a fine. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was discussed as part of the outreach conducted regarding Exterior Property Maintenance Code changes. Feedback included general agreement with the ability to issue civil citations immediately for repeat civil infractions. ORDINANCE NO. 071 , 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 19-65 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATED TO THE SERVICE OF A CIVIL CITATION WHEREAS, certain violations of the City Code are punishable as criminal misdemeanor offenses and others as civil infractions; and WHEREAS, criminal misdemeanors are subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) and/or imprisonment not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days, in addition to any costs that may be assessed; and WHEREAS, a civil infraction violation is subject to a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), plus costs, damages, and expenses; and WHEREAS, Section 19-65 of the City Code establishes the process for issuing citations for civil infractions; and WHEREAS, the citation procedures for civil infractions generally require that an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a responsible party has committed a civil infraction must serve a notice of violation, and set a reasonable period of time within which the responsible party may correct the violation before being issued a citation; and WHEREAS, the citation procedures set forth exceptions to this notice requirement and opportunity to correct the violation in the event that the violation presents a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or the damage done by the violation is irreparable or irreversible, or the violation is of Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 2009, which allowed for the current exception to the notice requirement regarding occupancy limit violations; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 51, 2009 unintentionally deleted another exception to the notice requirement for second or subsequent violations by the responsible party; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends adding such exception back into the City Code along with an additional requirement that the exception only apply in the event that a second or subsequent violation occurs within a twelve month period; and WHEREAS, in February of 2013, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 021, 2013, the City Council decriminalized certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals, and amended Section 19 of the City Code to allow for Municipal Court to handle such civil infractions; and WHEREAS, City staff believes that there are code violations related to the care and keeping of animals such as animal at large wherein an officer should have the ability to immediately serve a civil infraction citation in the event of a first violation without prior warning or notice; and WHEREAS, City staff therefore recommends adding another exception to the notice requirement in Section 19-65 that would allow officers to immediately serve a civil citation to a responsible party, without prior notice, for any civil infraction violation in Chapter 4, Article II related to the care and keeping of animals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended City 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 Section 19-65 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure. (a) Officers shall have the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings as provided below. (1) An officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a responsible party has committed a civil infraction under this Code is authorized to serve a notice of violation to the responsible party. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the officer shall set a reasonable time period within which the responsible party must correct the violation. This determination shall be based on considerations of fairness, practicality, ease of correction, the nature, extent and probability of danger or damage to the public or property, and any other relevant factor relating to the reasonableness of the time period prescribed. An officer may immediately serve a civil citation to a responsible party, without prior notice, in the case of a civil infraction violation of Chapter 4, Article II of the Code, if there is reason to believe that the violation presents a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or the damage done by the violation is irreparable or irreversible, or if the violation is a second or subsequent violation by the responsible party that occurred within the twelve (12) months immediately following a previous violation, or the alleged violation is of Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ -2- Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Kathleen Lane AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTIONS 19-36 AND 19-41 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO MUNICIPAL COURT REFEREES WHEREAS, there is currently a residency requirement for Municipal Court Referees contained in City Code Section 19-36; and WHEREAS, there is no such requirement applicable to the Municipal Judge or the Assistant Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Judge wishes to have the Assistant Municipal Judge act as a back-up for the Municipal Court Referees, especially with the addition of animal infraction cases beginning May 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the authority of the Referees to reduce or waive penalties and assessments contained in City Code Section 19-41 should be revised so that it is the same for all Referees; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve the above recommended amendments to the City Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 19-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-36. Creation; jurisdiction; qualifications. (a) The Municipal Judge is authorized and empowered to appoint one (1) or more Referees to hear certain municipal ordinance violations relating to parking or Municipal Code violations designated as civil infractions, and to review any costs of abatement or removal assessed pursuant to civil infraction provisions of this Code, as the Municipal Judge may from time to time designate. Such alleged violations may include any offense or infraction which may now or in the future be included in the schedule of payable fines established by the Municipal Judge pursuant to law except any offense which might result in the assessment of points by the State Department of Revenue against the responsible party's driving license or privilege. (b) The Referee shall be an attorney admitted to practice law in the State, and have a minimum of five (5) years of legal or judicial experience and be a resident of the City. (c) A Referee appointed by the Municipal Judge to hear civil infractions shall be appointed from a list of candidates chosen by a staff committee representing each of the following: Neighborhood Services, the City Attorney's Office and the Human Resources Department. (d) The City Manager is authorized to appoint a designee to represent the City's interest, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney's Office, in parking and civil infraction proceedings heard by the Referee. Section 2. That Section 19-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-41. Authorization to reduce or waive penalties and assessments. (a) For parking violations, tThe Referee may assess a penalty less than the fine prescribed in the schedule of fines published by the Municipal Judge or may suspend such fine in any case where the Referee determines, based upon evidence obtained during the course of the hearing, that such action would be in the best interests of justice. (b) For all other civil infractions, the Referee shall assess a penalty within the range of fines established by ordinance or in the schedule of fines published by the Municipal Judge. In addition, the Referee may impose any other costs, damages, expenses and orders that may be authorized under Subsection 1-15(f). (cb) The Referee may also reduce or waive any costs or fees assessed by the City in connection with the abatement or removal of a nuisance, except those fees that may be imposed by the City to defray the cost of hearing an appeal of the amount of the assessment, if the Referee determines, based upon mitigating circumstances, that such reduction or waiver would be in the best interests of justice. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: May 7, 2013 STAFF: Steve Catanach, Janet McTague, Virginia Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Code requires non-City Utility providers to apply for a permit to provide electric service to customers within areas annexed by the City until the Utility has facilities available. The Utility and the non-City utility provider work together to establish a transfer date without issuance or revocation of a permit. Current rules and regulations require that all changes, regardless of scale and impact, be considered and adopted by City Council. The Utilities Executive Director would only consider approval of minor technical revisions that are consistent with existing policies, do not result in any significant cost to persons affected by the revision and do not alter the standard or level of service provided. Granting authority to the Utilities Executive Director to adopt minor changes and clarifications allows the Utility to respond quickly to needed changes and facilitates responsible use of staff and Council time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 073, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO GRANT REVOCABLE PERMITS TO NON-CITY UTILITIES IN ANNEXED AREAS AND CORRECT INTERNAL REFERENCES WHEREAS, under Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code, when the City annexes property, any non-City electric utility serving the annexed area must affirmatively seek a permit to continue its services until the City’s Utility is prepared to serve the area; and WHEREAS, amending the City Code to automatically grant revocable permits to such non- City utilities will facilitate coordination between the City and non-City utility providers with less potential service impacts for property owners within annexed areas; and WHEREAS, an internal reference in the City Code regarding the process for customer appeals of administrative decisions affecting electric utility services is incorrect and should be corrected; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these proposed amendments to the City Code are 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 Section 26-447 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-447. Annexations. Properties within any annexationannexed to the City may, after annexation, continue to receive electric service from any utility previously furnishing such service without complying with the provisions of this Division unless and until the receipt of written notice from the City of the City's readinessCity elects to provide electric service to such properties, in which event the City shall notify the owner of the annexed property and the non-City utility provider in writing of its intention to provide such service and the date upon which such service will be transferred to the City. As of the date upon which the City has declared itself to be responsible for providing such service,of service transfer, all electric service within any annexed area shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Division. If the City is unablehas not elected to provide electric service to annexed property prior to the expiration of the second year after annexation of that property, then the non-City utility previously furnishing service may continue to do so if said continued service is authorized by the City Council through the grant of a revocable permit for that purpose. Any such revocable permit shall authorize the continued provision of electric service by the non-City utility to the annexed property until such time as the City either determines that the City is ready to provide electric service, or notifies said non-City utility that a franchise shall be required for the continuation of such serviceto such property shall be deemed to have been granted a revocable permit by the City for the purpose of continuing to deliver such service. Said revocable permit shall continue in effect until such time as service is transferred to the City after written notice from the City as described above, in which event the permit shall be revoked upon written notice from the Utilities Executive Director to the non-City utility providing the service. Section 2. That Section 26-449 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-449. Appeals Any customer who believes that he or she has been aggrieved by a final determination or decision by the Utilities Executive Director or his or her designee regarding the application of the requirements of Chapter 26, Article IVVI of this Code or any rules or regulations authorized under such Article may petition the Utilities Executive Director for a hearing. The Utilities Executive Director may appoint a hearing officer or elect to conduct such hearing him or herself, provided that the aggrieved party makes written application for such hearing within seven (7) days of the date of such final determination or decision. If a timely request for hearing is made, a hearing concerning the proprietary of the final determination or decision shall be granted to the aggrieved party and, after notice to the aggrieved party, the hearing shall be held no more than ten (10) calendar days after the filing of the request for hearing. At the hearing the appellant and the City may be represented by an attorney, may present evidence and may cross-examine witnesses. A verbatim transcript of the hearing shall be made. The decision of the hearing officer or Utilities Executive Director shall be based upon competent evidence. The aggrieved party may file an appeal from such hearing to the City Manager's office pursuant to §2-541 of this Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: May 7, 2013 STAFF: Tom Vosburg Steve Catanach AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection Project Standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item 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 on going operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing or research projects. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION It is the City’s established policy and practice to involve the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility in innovative research projects and partnerships relating to emerging electric grid technologies and management practices. The following Plan Fort Collins Principle and Policy statements directly speak to this practice: Principle ENV 7: The City will pursue efforts to modernize the electric grid to provide a safe, reliable and secure grid, and to allow for integration of smart grid technologies. Policy ENV 7.11 – Participate in Research, Development and Demonstrations: Remain at the forefront of emerging technologies and innovative solutions through research, development, and demonstration projects. Past examples of these kinds of research projects include FortZED and the Department of Energy Renewable and Distributed Systems (RDSI) grant. The Electricity utility industry in general is in the midst of significant change both operationally and how it operates as a business. Distributed generation such as solar PV and other customer changes on the fringe of the distributions system all have an effect on the distribution system. Participation in testing new technologies help the Utility understand and plan for possible future changes and thus directly supports the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility's core mission. The City of Fort Collins has traditionally established aggressive goals for the Utility that require new and innovative practices that may not yet be widely adopted and thus are not well supported by conventional technologies. This has required the Utility to contribute to developing new innovative practices to achive community goals. For example, in 1968 the City Council passed an ordinance requiring all new subdivision utility installations to be installed underground. At the time, mainstream methods for underground utility installation were not well developed and were expensive and difficult to implement. Fort Collins Light and Power engineers developed and patented a new design for a lightweight prefabricated modular fiberglass underground transformer vault that was far more practical and cost effective to use than the standard poured concrete vaults commonly used at the time. No such prefabricated fiberglass vaults were available on the market and the City’s active involvement in developing the new product was critical to the success of the undergrounding program. Development of this equipment improved not only the City’s utility operations but helped advance undergrounding within the electric utility industry. The City’s established policies and technical standards for operation of the electric utility are contained in Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code and also in the Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities (GF) Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System. These policies and standards reflect best practices based on current grid management technologies. May 7, 2013 -2- ITEM 15 In some cases, emerging “modernizing” grid management technologies are not yet directly accommodated by the City’s current standards. Not having some flexibility to temporarily adjust or allow exemptions to some standards could limit the City’s ability to more effectively participate in research partnerships, equipment testing, and demonstration projects. The RDSI project is one current example of a research partnership project where having this flexibility would be very beneficial. The City recently received additional grant funding from the DOE to include two additional demonstration projects as part of the overall grant. One project will demonstrate the use of new cybersecurity protection mechanisms for controlling microgrids; the other will evaluate better methods of load balancing the power feeds from Photovoltaic arrays. One current example of an existing technical standard for which a temporary exemption should be granted is the current prohibition of islanding portions of the distribution system now contained in the City’s Interconnection Standards for Generation Facilities (GF) Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System. This restriction inhibits the ability for the RDSI project team to most effectively operate the cybersecure microgrid demonstration project. This constraint can be removed if a temporary exemption to the prohibition of the practice of islanding now contained in the Interconnection Standards for Generation Facilities (GF) Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System is allowed for the limited scope and duration of the project. While the City is confident that islanding operations can be appropriately tested within the context of the narrowly defined scope of the demonstration project, standards for islanding are not yet mature enough to be adopted for general on-going operations through-out the system. City Code now provides no guidance regarding how the City may resolve these kinds of limitations to better carry out Policy ENV 7.11. This Ordinance is intended to provide that missing guidance and better align the Utilities operating standards with City policy. These provisions would grant the Utilities Executive Director the authority to authorize temporary exemptions to specific standards for the purpose of supporting City-managed research projects and would provide a means to assess emerging technologies and practices without committing to integrate such new practices into the Utilities ordinary operations. This will protect the Utilities customers’ interests, while providing the City the means to more effectively implement Policy ENV 7.11. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City’s policy of involving the Light and Power Utility in research partnerships supports local economic development by helping establish Colorado State University and the Fort Collins community as a center of innovation in the clean energy sector as well as by helping bring grant funding to the community. The City’s management of the RDSI project alone brought over $11,000,000 of Department of Energy grant funding into the Fort Collins community. There is clearly the potential for future partnership research projects to bring additional research funding to the community. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS One objective of modernizing the electric grid is to better support integration and use of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power. Enabling the City’s participation in research partnerships in this area may result in improvements in technologies that help further this objective. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATIVE ADOPTION OF MINOR RULE REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND INTERCONNECTION PROJECT STANDARDS WHEREAS, the City Charter and City Code require that rule and regulation changes be considered and adopted by the City Council prior to becoming effective; and WHEREAS, the effective provision of electric utility service and the application of the rules and regulations affecting service would be expedited by amending the City Code to authorize the Utilities Executive Director to approve minor, non-technical rule and regulation revisions to clarify existing standards and improve conformity with best engineering practices; and WHEREAS, coordination of improvements to the City’s electric utility system would be supported by amending the City Code to authorize the Utilities Executive Director to adopt standards for special research, equipment testing and pilot projects that are under the direction and control of the Fort Collins Utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these proposed amendments to the City Code are in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 26-463 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-463. Electric rates; general service rules and regulations and interconnection standards. (a) The rules, and regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System applicable to electric service and persons receiving electric service from the City shall be such rules, and regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System as are adopted by the Utilities Executive Director and approved by ordinance of the City Council. (b) Upon such adoption and approval, all such rules and regulations shall be in full force and effect and shall apply to any person, corporation or other entity receiving electric service from the City. (c) The Utilities Executive Director may adopt minor additions, revisions and corrections to the electric service rules, regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System as may, in the judgment of the Utilities Executive Director, be necessary to better conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and practice or to clarify a particular standard. The Utilities Executive Director shall approve only those proposed technical revisions that: (1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revisions; (2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision; and (3) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be provided. Upon adoption of any technical revisions pursuant to this Subsection, the Utilities Executive Director shall provide to the City Clerk documentation of such technical revisions specifying the date upon which they shall become effective, and shall maintain said documentation on file in the permanent records of the City Clerk and Utility Services and shall make the same available for public inspection. (d) The Utilities Executive Director may approve the limited suspension of the electric service rules, regulations and Interconnection Standards for Generating Facilities Connected to the Fort Collins Distribution System for the purpose of supporting special research, equipment testing or pilot projects that are under the direction and control of the Fort Collins Utilities. The Utilities Executive Director shall approve limited suspension only for projects that: (1) are temporary in nature and will be discontinued at the conclusion of a defined Project Execution Plan which clearly defines project timelines; (2) are integral and necessary to achieve the research, testing or demonstration objectives of the project; (3) are limited in their potential effect to specifically identified facilities and customers that are informed and consenting participants in the project and do not have the potential to impact the overall distribution system or ordinary utility customers; (4) reflect appropriate due diligence and good engineering practices; and (5) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be provided. Project managers proposing limited suspension for a project must submit a written request to the Utilities Executive Director together with a project execution plan and a risk management plan. -2- The Utilities Executive Director may revoke the limited suspension and require that system components and operations be brought into compliance with the standards at any time during the course of the project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Lisa Rosintoski AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First 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. 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 action is necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION 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. This arrangement is commonly known within the solar industry as a “feed-in-tariff model.” The customer may enter agreements with solar developers for the installation of the system, which also may include financing, lease-purchase and rooftop property leasing. The energy output of the solar system goes directly to Fort Collins Utilities’ electric grid and customers are paid based on the metered output of the system, according to the PPA. The agreement does not alter the customer’s electric bill. This approach is sometimes referred to as “in front of the meter”, implying that the interconnection with the grid is on the utility side of the customer’s billing meter. The PPAs also convey the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)—the right to claim the renewable energy attributes of a project—to Utilities to be used toward compliance with the Colorado RES. Expanding customer-sited solar renewable energy supports the community’s Climate Action Plan and Energy Policy greenhouse gas reduction goals while supporting local investment. Key Issues Two key issues were discussed at length to arrive at the proposed program, (1) incentive pricing approach and, (2) “in front of” vs. “behind” the meter. For the first issue, a competitive bidding approach to set offer prices was considered. After tracking the limited success of several other utility programs that used a bidding approach, staff concluded that a standard price approach was recommended. The recommendations related to the second key issue are based on balancing benefits to all rate paying customers, participating customers and the solar industry. Customers understand, and some have asked for the net metered approach because it provides for a “hedge” against future utility price increases. While attractive to the participating customer, the “hedge” is an uncertain financial element which is borne by all other ratepayers. The FCSP3 offers benefits to all rate payers by obtaining renewable energy at a price competitive with other paths to RES commitments. The FIT approach (“in front of the meter”) makes the offer simple and well defined for all parties and limits uncertainty related to future electricity rates. The stable contract price provides financial certainty for all parties and encourages partnerships between solar developers, host customer sites and sources of financing. The FCSP3 fact sheet is included as Attachment 1. Page three lists key attributes of the proposed program along with the purpose and benefits of each attribute. Renewable Energy Standard The Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES) was originally established by voters as Amendment 37, and has been modified by the Colorado legislature. Fort Collins’ commitments are a minimum of 3% through 2014, 6% in 2015 and 10% in 2020. May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 16 Year Minimum Actual Electricity Amount (megawatt-hours) 2012 3.0% 3.4% 53,000 2015 6.0% TBD 90,000 2020 10.0% TBD 150,000 Utilities current renewable energy commitments are met through a mix of wind energy projects, renewable energy credits and local solar installations. Faced with making new investments in renewable energy, Utilities proposed to meet a portion of its commitment through a program that focuses on the installation of solar systems on local customers’ premises. Similar successful programs are in place in a number of locations throughout the country and world. It is important to note that voluntary renewable energy purchases through Utilities’ Green Energy Program do not count towards the overall renewable energy commitments under the RES. The 2015 renewable energy target corresponds to an increase from current renewable energy levels of approximately 40,000 megawatt-hours (MWh). There are several ways Utilities could meet the increased requirements, including: 1. Purchase of qualified renewable energy credits. 2. Wind energy, through development or participation in new utility-scale projects. 3. Solar energy, through development or participation in new utility-scale projects. 4. Solar energy, through a program which supports the installation of systems located locally on customer premises (e.g., on Utilities’ electric distribution system). The RES includes the option to use “multipliers” that provide additional benefits based on renewable energy technology and location. The RES multiplier for locally based solar energy is 3X, meaning that solar energy produced counts three times towards the RES obligation. The multiplier was designed to make solar energy investments competitive with wind energy investments. The solar projects from this program are expected to generate approximately 7,500 megawatt-hours annually. Utilizing the 3x multiplier, this amount will meet approximately 25 percent of the overall renewable energy commitment for 2015 (50% of the additional 2015 gap). Additional resources will still be required to meet the total 2015 commitment, and are expected to be met via additional purchases from Platte River Power Authority. Next Steps Utilities will develop the application materials in order to open an initial application period in July 2013. A second application period will occur in the first quarter of 2014. All solar systems need to be installed by July 2015 in order to meet the RES commitments. Other Solar Options Utilities also offers small-scale solar rebates with net metering and voluntary green energy purchase options. Customers can visit fcgov.com/solar to view current programs that support solar installations. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS PPA purchases under the FCSP3 are to be capped at $1million per year funded by a 1/2% electric rate increase in each of years 2013 and 2014. Funding commitments for these power purchases will persist for the 20 year term of the agreements. At the end of the agreement term, Utilities will consider the option to establish new agreements based on continuing needs for community renewable energy. The installation of approximately five megawatts of new solar energy within Fort Collins is also expected to provide local economic benefits through the purchase and installation of the solar systems. The distribution amongst local companies of on-going power purchase payments ($1million annually) will depend upon the structure of agreements between customers, solar developers and financial partners. May 21, 2013 -3- ITEM 16 Under the preferential treatment by the Colorado RES of locally deployed solar electric generation, these green power purchases are competitive with other alternatives (wind power) available currently. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The solar projects from this program are expected to generate approximately 7,500 megawatt-hours of electricity. Using current conversion factors, this will result in avoiding over 6,000 metric tons of carbon emissions. The program will also greatly expand local generation, helping to support the transition to a dynamic and distributed smart grid system. Successful program results may also provide the groundwork for continued program expansion in future years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented information about the program to the Energy Board at its regular meeting on May 2. The Board completed a memo (Attachment 2) which noted that, “The Energy Board has reviewed the pilot program with staff and supports the overall objectives and proposed attributes. Therefore, the Board requests City Council approve the Purchasing Manager be granted authority to energy into 20 year agreements for the Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program.” PUBLIC OUTREACH Utilities began seeking feedback from business customers and solar industry stakeholders in January. In addition to one-on-one meetings with key account customers, Utilities initiated an on-line survey of business customers in April with 112 responses. Survey results indicated strong interest in the program and general agreement with the overall goals (Attachment 3). Roughly half of respondents indicate interest to participate. The survey results and additional feedback were discussed at a public open house April 23rd, attended by 28 people. Four key questions were: • direct to grid program proposal versus benefits of net metering • whether property tax will be assessed against the PV installations • how businesses as building tenants might be able to participate • how these systems will be treated at the head of the 20-year PPA term. Solar industry feedback was solicited through the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA). Specific solar industry stakeholders also participated in the survey and open house. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program factsheet (draft) 2. Memo from Energy Board on Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program 3. Summary of customer and stakeholder survey results FACT SHEET Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program April 2013 Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers. Approved by City Council in November 2012, this pilot program will help meet Utilities’ 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 commercial customers for solar energy generation. This arrangement is commonly known within the solar industry as a “feed-in-tariff model.” The customer may enter agreements with solar developers for the installation of the system, which also may include financing, lease-purchase and rooftop property leasing. The energy output of the solar system goes directly to Fort Collins Utilities’ electric grid and customers are paid based on their PPA. The agreement does not alter the customer’s electric bill. This approach is sometimes referred to as “in front of the meter.” The PPAs also convey the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)—the right to claim the renewable energy attributes of a project—to Utilities to be used toward compliance with the Colorado RES. Current Status Utilities current renewable energy commitments are met through a mix of wind energy projects, renewable energy credits and local solar installations. Faced with making new investments in renewable energy, Utilities proposed to meet a portion of its commitment through a program that focuses on the installation of solar systems on local customers’ premises. Similar successful programs are in place in a number of locations throughout the country and world. The solar projects from this program will meet approximately 25 percent of the renewables goal for 2015. In addition, the locally produced renewable energy supports the community’s Climate Action Plan and Energy Policy greenhouse gas reduction goals while supporting local investment. City Council authorized funding for the program in November 2012, which is capped at $1 million/year and funded by a .5 percent rate increase in 2013 and 2014. Additional investments for renewable energy via other options also will be needed to meet the RES commitments. ATTACHMENT 1 1 Background Renewable Energy Standard (RES) Utilities’ 2015 renewable target, under the RES, is to provide 6 percent of retail electric sales from renewable energy sources. This target corresponds to an increase from current renewable energy levels of approximately 45,000 megawatt-hours (MWh). There are several ways Utilities could meet the increased requirements, including: 1. Purchase of qualified renewable energy credits. 2. Wind energy, through development or participation in new utility-scale projects. 3. Solar energy, through development or participation in new utility-scale projects. 4. Solar energy, through a program which supports the installation of systems located locally on customer premises (e.g., on Utilities’ electric distribution system). The RES includes the option to use “multipliers” that provide additional benefits based on renewable energy technology and location. The RES multiplier for locally based solar energy is 3X, meaning that solar energy produced counts three times towards the RES obligation. The multiplier was designed to make solar energy investments competitive with wind energy investments. Feed-in-Tariff Model FCSP3 is based on what the solar industry calls a feed-in-tariff (FIT), which provides a standard price for renewable energy that feeds electricity directly into the utility grid. Instead of locating the solar generation at a remote location, the solar systems are located on customer sites. The key feature of the FIT is a standard, long-term, fixed-price PPA. The stable contract price provides financial certainty for all parties and encourages partnerships between solar developers, host customer sites and sources of financing. Other Solar Options Utilities also offers small-scale solar rebates with net metering and voluntary green energy purchase options. Customers can visit fcgov.com/solar to view current programs that support solar installations. For More Information Contact Senior Energy Services Engineer Norm Weaver, (970) 416-2312, nweaver@fcgov.com or visit fcgov.com/solar. 2 Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program - Key Attributes Program Attribute Purpose / Benefit Projects will be located on the premise of Fort Collins Utilities’ commercial customers Local economic benefit, reduction in transmission line losses Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems range in size from 10 to 1,000 kilowatts (kW) Diversity of project sizes 1,000 kW maximum aggregate capacity on any single parcel Diversity of participating customers 2,000 kW maximum capacity for a single commercial entity for multiple parcels and projects Diversity of participating customers Grid interconnection “in front of the customer meter” (achieved by actual point of interconnection or billing adjustment) • Predictable long-term cost for ratepayers (as approved in City budget) • Avoids risk to ratepayers of having a net metering hedge for participating customers • Higher energy payment to participants Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Utilities and host customer Customer benefit, alignment with Platte River Power Authority service agreement Payments made are for actual production via separate metering on the solar system Pay for performance 25 percent of funds reserved for systems sized between 10 and 100 kW (applications in the small and large system categories will be handled as separate groups) Diversity of project sizes Two-tier 20-year, fixed-price standard offer • 18¢/kWh 10 kW-100 kW • 15 ¢/kWh >100 kW to 1,000 kW (Pricing may be subject to further analysis) Recognizes economies of scale Utilities retains Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) Commitment to meet Colorado RES Applications will be accepted on a modified first-come, first-served basis Fair selection process 3 ATTACHMENT 2 5/8/2013 1 1 Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program Survey Results Open House April 23, 2013 Fort Collins Utilities 2 Survey Information • On-line survey – Key Account, Climate Wise and interested business customers – Solar industry stakeholders ATTACHMENT 3 5/8/2013 2 3 Survey: Overall Results • General agreement: – Program goals are worth the investment – Costs need to be balanced with local benefits – Appropriate for Utilities to own the RECs • Good understanding of feed-in tariff, net metering and PPA 3 4 Survey: Overall Results • 40% think the 5 MW goal is about the right level – Those who disagree prefer more aggressive goal. • Over half satisfied with rate of return of 6% to 8% – Those unsatisfied expressed desire for return of 10% or higher • Uncertainty about preference for project size – 76% would like numerous smaller projects – 40% OK with only a few large projects 4 5/8/2013 3 5 Survey: Overall Results • Most important program features: – Clear and unbiased application process – Assistance with application process – Experience of project development team – Locating the solar project at organization’s property 5 6 Survey: Overall Results • Over half interested in participation – Split equally between smaller and larger systems – Smaller systems • At 10 cents per kWh, 35% interested • At 18 cents per kWh, 60% interested – Larger systems • At 10 cents per kWh, 29% interested • At 18 cents per kWh, 53% interested 6 5/8/2013 4 7 Survey: Verbatim Comments (top 4) • Cost – Potential savings; cost effectiveness; help with set-up costs; advantages of PPA • Realizing return on investment – Benefit to host; method of calculation; role of PPA; hedge against future rate increases; opportunity for positive cash flow • Structure – Balance of large vs. small projects; ‘behind’ or ‘in front’ of meter; how it works for multi-property owners; multiple aggregated projects • Process – Streamlined and standardized; model carefully to predict interest levels and potential for ‘overwhelming’ interest 7 ORDINANCE NO. 075, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO STANDARD POWER PURCHASE PROGRAM AGREEMENTS WITH SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM OWNERS FOR UP TO 20 YEARS WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Utilities Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages installation of new local solar systems in support of the City’s renewable energy commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES) and Amendment 37; and WHEREAS, solar system projects under the program are expected to generate up to 7,500 megawatt-hours annually, meeting approximately 25 percent of the City’s renewable energy commitment for 2015; and WHEREAS, implementation of FCSP3 relies upon fixed-rate, 20-year Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between the City and individual photovoltaic system owners; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities is preparing requests for proposals to determine available capacity relative to FCSP3 commitment requirements, as well as a process for equitable award of PPAs to interested local solar system owners; and WHEREAS, individual PPAs will be capped at annual purchase amounts, and total FCSP3 purchases are capped at $1,000,000 per year, pursuant to funding approved through the City’s budget process and subject to annual appropriation; and WHEREAS, entering into PPAs with 20 year terms enhances the City’s ability to plan and implement systematic improvements to the City’s electric utility toward meeting the City’s renewable energy commitments, and incentivizes investment in local solar systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8-186 of the City Code, no contract for services shall be made for a longer period than five years unless authorized by the City Council by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized and directed to enter into power purchase agreements with individual photovoltaic system owners for the purchase of solar-generated electric power, consistent with the approved budget, the Fort Collins Utilities Solar Power Purchase Program, and this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of May, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Jason Holland AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-046 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the February 25, 2013 Administrative Hearing Officer Approval of the 621 South Meldrum Street Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 13, 2013, an Administrative Hearing was held to consider approval of the 621 South Meldrum Street Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(J). The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on February 25, 2013 to approve the proposed Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard, with two conditions. On March 19, 2013, an Amended Notice of Appeal was filed by Alan, Eric and Walter Skowron. On May 7, 2013, City Council voted 7 - 0 to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing either by considering evidence relevant to the Hearing Officer’s findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading or by failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. 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 Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing because evidence which was substantially false and grossly misleading and that the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. At the May 7, 2013 hearing on the matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the appellants and the applicants. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2013-046 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 2013 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER APPROVAL OF THE 621 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on February 25, 2013, the City's Administrative Hearing Officer (the "Hearing Officer") approved a project development plan for the project known as 621 South Meldrum Street Project Development Plan (the “PDP”); and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, a Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Eric Skowron (the "Appellant"); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, an Amended Notice of Appeal was filed with the City Clerk by Eric, Walter and Alan Skowron; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said amended appeal, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion, upheld the decision of the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-57(g) provides that no later than the date of its regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-57(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing in approving the PDP, and did not consider evidence relevant to her findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading nor did she fail to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellant. 3. That accordingly, the decision of the Hearing Officer is upheld. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Jill Stilwell AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-047 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Fund grant program, established in 1989, disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and the Tourism Programming Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code, where 25% of the revenue from the lodging tax funds the Cultural Development and Programming Account utilized to support cultural events. An additional 5% of revenue from the lodging tax is dedicated to the Tourism Programming Account that supports tourism events and activities. Local non-profit organizations may apply to Fort Fund for cultural and/or tourism event support. The Council-appointed Cultural Resources Board reviews grant applications based on approved guidelines and makes recommendations for Fort Fund disbursements to City Council, pursuant to Section 2-203 (3) of the City Code. Fort Fund grants support events that enrich the cultural life of the community, promote local heritage and diversity, provide opportunities for cultural participation, help define Fort Collins as a cultural center and tourist destination, have wide appeal for a significant part of the community, and promote the general welfare of the city’s inhabitants. Fort Fund consists of a three-tiered funding system. Tier #1 was established as an annual programming tier for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier #1 each April. Tier #2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events. Applications for support from Tier #2 are accepted each January and June. The Cultural Innovation Tier #3 was established to further the goal of making Fort Collins a cultural center and tourist destination. The Cultural Innovation Tier #3 grants address a need in the cultural activity of Fort Collins, perpetuate the Tourism Account by generating overnight stays in local hotels, and/or develop new arts, cultural, or heritage tourism activities that have the potential to impact Fort Collins’ cultural and economic growth. Organizations may apply for funding from the Cultural Innovation Tier #3 each April. April 2013 Funding Session At its April 24, 2013 regular meeting, the Cultural Resources Board reviewed applications submitted for Tier #1 and Tier #3 funding. The Cultural Resources Board reviewed 18 Tier #1 applications with total requests equaling $211,000; and seven Tier #3 applications with total requests equaling $182,500. May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 18 The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds in 2013: FY 2013 AVAILABLE FUNDING AMOUNT SOURCE $211,552 FY 2013 Cultural Development and Programming Account (CDP) $47,750 FY 2013 Tourism Programming Account (TP) $56,096 Unanticipated Lodging Tax and Unspent Appropriations (CDP) $9,842 Unanticipated Lodging Tax (TP) $325,240 Total Funding Available for 2013 FUNDS ALLOCATED TO April 2013 FUNDING SESSION 60% % of Total FY 2013 Funds allocated to the April Funding Session $195,500 Total Funds Allocated to the April Funding Session $141,500 Amount from Cultural Development and Programming Account (CDP) $54,000 Amount from Tourism Programming Account (TP) The Cultural Resources Board scored each application using the eleven Funding Criteria outlined in the Fort Fund Guidelines (attachment 1) and discussed each application at the meeting. The Board discussion is outlined in the April 24, 2013 draft minutes (attachment 2). The Board is recommending disbursement of $141,500 from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and $53,000 from the Tourism Programming Account, totaling $194,500 to 22 applicants as outlined in Exhibit A (attachment 3). The requests totaled $393,500 and $195,500 was available. Of the total amount requested and considered, 49% is being recommended for funding with available funds. The following table summarizes the utilization of funds from all sources. Recommended Funding % of Total Category $141,500 72% Cultural Development and Programming Account $53,000 27% Tourism Account $1,000 1% Unallocated $195,500 100.0% Funds Allocated for January Funding Session The $1,000 of unallocated funds will be carried over to the next 2013 funding session. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Fort Fund grant program disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and Tourism Programming Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code. This Resolution authorizes distribution of $141,500 from the Cultural Development and Programming Account and $53,000 from the Tourism Programming Account to local non-profit organizations. Each organization must match the grant amount. These funds were budgeted and appropriated in the 2013 budget. The non-profit arts are a $19 million industry in Fort Collins. By awarding these grants, the City is partnering with 22 organizations to leverage a variety of cultural and tourism events that contribute to this economic impact and add to our quality of life. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its April 24, 2013 meeting, the Cultural Resources Board recommended adoption of the Resolution. May 21, 2013 -3- ITEM 18 ATTACHMENTS 1. Fort Fund Guidelines 2. Cultural Resources Board minutes (Draft), April 24, 2013 The Cultural Development & Programming and Tourism Accounts (Fort Fund) is funded by an allocation of the lodging tax revenues. Applications are reviewed by the Cultural Resources Board of the City of Fort Collins and recommendations to fund events are submitted to the Fort Collins City Council for final approval. The objective of Fort Fund is to provide funds to foster, encourage, and promote 1) cultural development and programming, and 2) economic and tourism development. The overarching goal for Fort Fund is to serve as a catalyst in making Fort Collins a cultural center and destination. Fort Fund supports events that: • Enrich the cultural life of the Fort Collins community • Promote local heritage and diversity • Provide opportunities for community members to participate in, create, learn from or experience arts and culture • Help to define Fort Collins as a destination for arts and culture • Elevate the community and broaden perspectives • Have wide appeal for a significant part of the community • Promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The following will not be considered for funding: • Applications for funds solely to print brochures, magazines or promotional materials, or for capital improvements. • Any event in which the net proceeds or profit from the event is donated by the sponsor to another organization and/or individual. Funds will not be disbursed directly after each funding session. Organizations recommended for grant monies by the Cultural Resources Board must first be approved by the City Council. Funding Tiers & Application Deadlines An organization and/or event may receive funding from one or more of the following three tiers as described below. Specific application deadlines are listed immediately following each tier. Requests must be for a minimum of $500. Funding is subject to the amount of available funds per funding session. The Cultural Resources Board reserves the right to not fund an organization if it does not fully meet the criteria. Fort Fund will now only accept one application per organization per funding session. Colorado State University organizations are required to submit their applications through the Sponsored Programs Office. ATTACHMENT 1 All applications are to be submitted to the Lincoln Center Administration Office, 417 W. Magnolia, Fort Collins, CO, 80521 by 5p.m. on the date stated. Postmark does not qualify. Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Gail Budner at (970) 221-6737. TIER # 1: Annual Programming Fund Organizations are eligible to apply for funding from Tier #1 if they meet the following criteria: 1. The primary purpose of the organization is to present three or more different public performances, events or exhibits per year. 2. The organization has proven annual program success for three previous years. Organizations that meet the criteria may apply for up to $15,000 per year (July 1 - June 30). The organization must submit a mission statement stating the organizations' officially accepted primary purpose; provide evidence of having presented three or more performances, events, or exhibits for three previous years; submit financial statements for the three most recently completed fiscal years; provide a list of the organization's current Board of Directors, their business/organizational affiliations, the date they were elected to the Board and their term limit date; and submit a Tourism Impact form. Fort Fund will only accept one Tier #1 application per organization per calendar year. Organizations that apply for this level of funding would have to show that no more than 35% of their projected expenses are coming from Fort Fund. Proposal Deadline for Tier #1: First Tuesday of April, 5:00 p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $15,000 Request amount cannot exceed 35% of the total projected expenses TIER # 2: Special Events Fund Organizations that present event(s) may apply for up to $5,000 for a single event or series of events per funding session. Events would have to be held within one year of the funding session. Fort Fund will only accept one Tier #2 application per organization per funding session at which Tier #2 applications are accepted. The organization must submit a financial statement from the most recently completed fiscal year and submit a Tourism Impact form. Organizations funded under Tier #1 could apply one time per calendar year for up to $5,000 under Tier 2, but the event cannot also be funded under Tier 1. Organizations that apply for this level of funding would have to show that no more than 50% of their projected expenses are coming from Fort Fund. Proposal Deadline for Tier #2: First Tuesday of January, 5p.m.; First Tuesday of June, 5p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $5,000 Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total event expenses Tier #3 Cultural Innovation Organizations are eligible to apply for up to $25,000 from Tier #3: Cultural Innovation if they seek funding for an activity or event that will increase Fort Collins' identity as a cultural center and tourist destination. The term 'activity' can mean event, projects, products, exhibits, festivals, programs, etc. and can be in the area of arts, nature, heritage, recreation, science, and /or humanities. The event or activity must meet the eligibility requirements and the strategies outlined below: Tier #3 Strategies: Proposals should address specific strategies to increase Fort Collins' identity as a cultural center and tourism destination, resulting in at least two of the following benefits: 1. Fulfill a need in the existing cultural activity of Fort Collins, such as events or visitor attractions held on the off season (September through April). 2. Perpetuate the Tourism Fund by generating over night stays in local lodging properties. 3. Develop new or expand awareness of arts, cultural, or heritage tourism activities and products that have the potential to impact Fort Collins cultural and economic growth. 4. Market and generate extensive publicity regionally, statewide and/or nationally to attract day and/or overnight visitors. These events or activities should enrich the cultural life available in the city because they will serve as an attraction to visitors, represent new cultural offerings or can be described as unique, innovative or inventive. The organization must submit a mission statement stating the organizations' officially accepted primary purpose; provide evidence of having been in existence for at least three years; submit financial statements for the three most recently completed fiscal years; provide a list of current Board members; and submit a Tourism Impact form. Tier #3 applicants may also be required to present an oral presentation to the Cultural Resources Board. Fort Fund will only accept one Tier #3 application per organization per calendar year. Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total activity expenses. Request amount requires a dollar-for- dollar cash match. Neither in-kind contributions nor Fort Fund dollars from current or previous grants may be used in calculating the organization's match. Activities funded under Tier #3 shall not be simultaneously funded under Tiers #2 of Fort Fund. Tier #3 funded activities can only apply for a maximum of three years and must compete each time. Proposal Deadline for Tier #3: First Tuesday of April, 5:00p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $25,000 Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total activity expenses All applications are to be submitted to the Lincoln Center Administration Office, 417 W. Magnolia, Fort Collins, CO, 80521 by 5p.m. on the date stated. Postmark does not qualify. Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Gail Budner, (970) 221-6737. Eligibility Requirements Organizations chartered in Colorado with IRS non-profit status may submit an application for consideration. Written proof of this status must accompany all applications. All organizations that fall under the same IRS non-profit tax status will be considered the same unit for funding. • For all Tiers, Fort Fund will only accept one application per organization per funding session. Colorado State University organizations are required to submit their applications through the Sponsored Programs office. • Applications must be submitted on the forms provided at www.fcgov.com/fortfund and must arrive at the Lincoln Center administration office by the date/time listed as the deadline. Postmarks are not valid. Late applications will not be reviewed. • Events must be held in Fort Collins or in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. • Events must be open to the general public and efforts must be made to advertise and make the public aware of the opportunity to attend and/or participate in the event. • Events or activities must provide a direct public benefit of a reasonably general character to a significant number of City residents. • Events may occur no earlier than 45 days after the application deadline. • Events funded under Tier #1 must be completed by June 30th of the year following the date of funding. Events funded under Tier #2 must be completed within one year of the date of the funding session. Events funded under Tier #3 must be completed within 18 months of the funding session. • The applicant organization must be in good standing with the Fort Fund program. The applicant must not be delinquent on any previous mid-year or final Fort Fund reports; must have used the new Fort Fund logo on promotional materials; and must have listed the funded event on the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau website calendar. Organizations not in good standing will not be considered for funding for one calendar year. • Religious, sectarian or faith-based organizations may apply for funding, but only for events which are secular (non-religious) in nature. Fort Fund money may not be used for events that promote religion. • Fort Fund does not consider applications for funds solely to print brochures, magazines or promotional materials, or for general operating support or capital improvements. Additional Eligibility Requirements for Tier #1 and Tier #3: • The organization must have and submit an officially adopted mission statement expressing their primary purpose. • The organization has been in existence for a minimum of three years, and provides financial statements for the previous three completed fiscal years prior to the application date. • For Tier #1, the organization must show evidence of having presented three or more performances, events, or exhibits for three previous years. Criteria For Funding The following criteria are used by the Cultural Resourced Board to evaluate applications that have met all the eligibility requirements. Funding is based on how well an event or activity meets these criteria. Funding is subject to the amount of available funds per funding session. The Cultural Resources Board reserves the right to not fund an organization if it does not fully meet the criteria. Fort Fund supports events that: 1. Are of the highest quality; 2. Bring awareness of the arts to the local community; 3. Aspire to bring regional and national recognition to Fort Collins; 4. Are engaging and innovative and/or original; 5. Build a wide range of arts and culture offerings; 6. Raise arts and culture quality and participation to a new level; 7. Have an impact on the community economically, culturally or both; 8. Present strong evidence of leveraging other funding sources; All applicants are required to submit the Tourism Impact form. The information provided on the form will be reviewed as part of the application. Grant Requirements Organizations applying for Tier #1 funding cannot apply for more than 35% of their total projected annual expenses. Organizations applying for funding from Tier #2 may request funding for no more than 50% of the total projected expenses for any event. Organizations applying for the CIF cannot apply for more than 50% of their total projected expenses. • The amount requested under Tiers #1 and #2 must be matched with either cash or a combination of cash and in-kind services. At least one-half of the matching funds must be cash. For example, if an event is projected to cost $2,000, the amount requested from Fort Fund may not exceed $1,000. A $1,000 request would have to be matched with either $1,000 in projected cash revenues or at least $500 in cash and no more than $500 of in-kind services. The CIF requires the requested amount be matched dollar-for-dollar in cash. Neither in-kind contributions nor Fort Fund dollars from current or previous grants may be used in calculating the organization's match for the CIF. • Contracts for services with the City of Fort Collins must be signed prior to the issuance of funds. • All funds must be used for direct costs of the event(s) within the time frame as required by contract, or returned immediately to the Cultural Development and Programming Account. If the event changes significantly, the Cultural Resources Board must be notified in writing. Funding for the event may be re-evaluated at that time. • Organizations that receive funding must recognize the support of the City. All publicity and advertisements (including posters, programs, banners, flyers, newspaper ads and postcards) of the funded event must include the City's Fort Fund logo. If there is no printed material, a Fort Fund banner must be exhibited at the event. Organizations must also list the funded event on the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau website calendar at www.visitftcollins.com/events. • Organizations funded under Tier #1 must submit a financial mid-year and annual report by the date required in their contract. Organizations funded under Tier #2 and the CIF must submit a written report within sixty (60) days of the completion of an event. These reports, which evaluate estimated attendance, promotional materials, in-kind services, actual cash expenses and actual revenues must be submitted to the Cultural Resources Board through the Lincoln Center Administration Office. All reports must be signed by a representative of the organization that receives funding, verifying their accuracy. Records of the event need to be available for inspection upon request of the Cultural Resources Board. If the financial reports are not completed as required by contract, your organization's future funding may be effected. All organizations must provide a final report for previously granted funds before the contract for any new funding will be processed. • A member of the Cultural Resources Board may be assigned to each event to act as a liaison between funded organizations and the Board. If tickets are required for admission to an event and are not extended to the liaison as a courtesy, tickets will be purchased from the Cultural Development and Programming Account. • If the activity or event changes significantly from what was proposed in the original application, including date, location, or content, the organization must notify the Cultural Resources Board in writing at 417 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521. Funding, even if already distributed, may be reevaluated at that time. Cultural Resources Board Lincoln Center 417 W. Magnolia St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221-6735 970.221-6373 – fax . CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting – Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:00 p.m. Lincoln Center, 417 W. Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Council Liaison: TBD Staff Liaison: Jill Stilwell Chairperson: Maggie Dennis Phone: 590-3790 (cell) Vice-Chair: Chris Clemmer A regular meeting of the Cultural Resources Board was held on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The following members were present: Board Members present: Janet Gilligan, John Hayes, Chris Clemmer, Maggie Dennis, Tedi Cox, Jesse Solomon Board Members absent: Francisco Gutierrez Staff Members present: Jill Stilwell, Gail Budner Guests Present: Stevee Larsen-Jacobson/CSU student I. Call to Order: 5:10 p.m. – Maggie Dennis II. Consideration of agenda: none III. Consideration and approval of minutes from March 28, 2013. Ms. Gilligan made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Public input: Ms. Larsen requested information from the Board regarding their role in the community, the purpose of Fort Fund and how the granted awards were funded. V. Fort Fund - Discussion and funding recommendations: Prior to reviewing and awarding grant monies to the Fort Fund applicants, the Board discussed the quality of the applications and the available budget for this session. The Board then reviewed 18 Tier 1 applications and 7 Tier 3 applications and developed their recommendations for funding as outlined below and on the attached spreadsheet. Because Ms. Dennis was contracted by Beet Street as a grant writer, she disclosed her conflict of interest and recused herself from scoring and deliberating on their applications for a Tier 1 and a Tier 3 grant. ATTACHMENT 2 1 Tier 1 Recommendations BAS BLEU THEATRE COMPANY: 2013-2014 Main Stage Season Location: Bas Bleu Theatre Company Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $13,500 BEET STREET: 2013 Season Locations: Downtown, Front Range Village, public plazas and alleyways, Carnegie Library Building Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $5,000 CANYON CONCERT BALLET: 2013-2014 Season of Wonder Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall and Magnolia Theatre Amount Requested: $10,000 Amount Recommended: $7,000 CENTER FOR FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY: 2013-2014 Gallery Exhibitions Location: Center for Fine Art Photography Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $500 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: CSU Theatre 2013-2014Season Location: University Center for the Arts Theatre Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $12,000 DEBUT THEATRE: 2013-2014 Children’s Theatre Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre Amount Requested: $4,000 Amount Recommended: $500 FOOTHILLS POPS BAND: 2013-2014 Concert Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre and St. John’s Lutheran Church Amount Requested: $1,500 Amount Recommended: $500 FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF ART: 2013-2014 Exhibition Season Location: Fort Collins Museum of Art Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $13,500 FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY: 2013-2014 Educational Programs Location: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $13,500 FORT COLLINS SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION: 2013-2014 Concert Season Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $12,000 FRIENDS OF THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK: 2013 Community Events Location: The Gardens on Spring Creek Amount Requested: $11,000 Amount Recommended: $8,000 FRONT RANGE CHAMBER PLAYERS: 2013-2014 Concert Series Location: St. John’s Lutheran Church Amount Requested: $3,500 Amount Recommended: $500 2 IMPACT DANCE COMPANY: 2013-2014 Season Location: Various venues within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Amount Requested: $12,500 Amount Recommended: $7,000 LARIMER CHORALE: Concert Season 37 Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall, First United Methodist Church, Opera Galleria Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $12,000 OPENSTAGE THEATRE & COMPANY: 2013-2014 Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre and Columbine Health Systems Park Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $13,500 OPERA FORT COLLINS: 2013-2014 Season 34 Location: Lincoln Center and Griffin Concert Hall/UCA Amount Requested: $15,000 Amount Recommended: $7,500 POUDRE LANDMARKS FOUNDATION, INC.: Connect with History 2013-2014 Event Season Location: Avery and Carriage House, 1882 Water Works, private homes Amount Requested: $12,500 Amount Recommended: $10,000 SUSTAINABLE LIVING ASSOCIATION: 2013-2014 Educational Programs and Events Location: Legacy Park; Tours around Fort Collins Amount Requested: $6,000 Amount Recommended: $5,000 Total Funding Requested by Applicants for Tier 1: $211,000 Total Funding Recommended for disbursement by CRB: $141,500 Total Unfunded Balance: $69,500 % of Requests Funded: 67% Ms. Dennis made a motion to submit these recommendations for Fort Fund Tier 1 disbursements to City Council for their approval. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Tier 3 Recommendations: BEET STREET: Beet Street Hosting AIR Shift Workshops Location: Carnegie Library Building Amount Requested: $25,000 Amount Recommended: $0 FORT COLLINS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU: USA Pro Challenge Stage 6 Finish Location: Downtown with a route into Fort Collins via Overland Trail Amount Requested: $40,000 Amount Recommended: $20,000 FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF ART: Andy Warhol Print Exhibition Location: Fort Collins Museum of Art Amount Requested: $17,500 Amount Recommended: $13,000 FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY: Community Outreach and Marketing Location: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Amount Requested: $25,000 Amount Recommended: $10,000 3 FORT COLLINS MUSICIANS ASSOCIATION: FoCoMX 2014 / FoCoMA Peer Awards Location: 20+ venues in Fort Collins, concentrated in Old Town Amount Requested: $25,000 Amount Recommended: $10,000 POUDRE RIVER LIBRARY DISTRICT: Brews and Books: Fort Collins Book Festival Location: Old Town Library, various other venues in Old Town Amount Requested: $25,000 Amount Recommended: $0 SPOKESBUZZ FORT COLLINS: BandSwap 2013 Location: Multiple music venues in Fort Collins Amount Requested: $25,000 Amount Recommended: $0 Total Funding Requested by Applicants for Tier 3: $182,500 Total Funding Recommended for disbursement by CRB: $53,000 Total Unfunded Balance: $129,500 % of Requests Funded: 29% Ms. Gilligan made a motion to submit these recommendations for Fort Fund Tier 3 disbursements to City Council for their approval. Ms. Dennis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board requested that Ms. Budner encourage Poudre River Library District and SpokesBUZZ, organizations that did not receive Tier 3 funding for their event, to re-apply for a Tier 2 / Special Events grant in June. 4 RESOLUTION 2013-047 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD REGARDING FORT FUND DISBURSEMENTS WHEREAS, the City disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and Tourism Programming Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code through its Fort Fund Program; and WHEREAS, the City’s Cultural Resources Board reviews applications for Fort Fund monies and makes recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 2-203(3) of the City Code, and in accordance with the administrative guidelines for the Fort Fund program (the “Fort Fund Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25-244 of the City Code, the Cultural Development and Programming Account was established for the purpose of funding cultural development and programming activities and the Tourism Programming Account was established for the purpose of funding tourist-related special events; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on April 24, 2013, the Cultural Resources Board recommended funding for various proposals as set forth on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the criteria and considerations set forth in Section 2-203 and the Fort Fund Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposals recommended by the Cultural Resources Board provide a public benefit to the Fort Collins community by supporting cultural development and programming activities within the City and promoting the use of public accommodations within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that funds in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($141,500) in the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and FIFTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($53,000) from the Tourism Programming Account are hereby distributed in accordance with the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board as set forth on Exhibit “A”. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A FORT FUND GRANT PROGRAM April 2013 PERCENT OF TIER 1 FUNDING UNFUNDED REQUEST APPLICANT PROPOSED EVENT/DATE REQUEST FUND 1 FUND 2 BALANCE FUNDED Bas Bleu Theatre Company 2013-2014 Main Stage Season Location: Bas Bleu Theatre Company $15,000 $13,500 $0 $1,500 90% Bas Bleu's season offers 105 performances, 15 Reader's Theatre, 6 concerts, 6 visual art exhibits, acting classes, workshops, special events, seminars and talk-backs. Beet Street Beet Street 2013 Season Downtown, Front Range Village, public plazas and alleyways, Carnegie Library Building $15,000 $5,000 $0 $10,000 33% Beet Street's season includes Streetmosphere, Arts & Drafts community networking events, First Friday Gallery events, and the 2nd Annual Fort Collins Arts Community Holiday Party. Canyon Concert Ballet 2013-2014 Season of Wonder Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall and Magnolia Theatre $10,000 $7,000 $0 $3,000 70% Canyon Concert Ballet will present a Youth Ensemble performance, The Nutcracker Ballet, Snow White, and their Spring Showcase. Center for Fine Art Photography 2013-2014 Gallery Exhibitions Location: Center for Fine Art Photography $15,000 $500 $0 $14,500 3% The Center for Fine Art Photography hosts between nine and eleven Main Gallery photographic exhibitions every year. Colorado State University CSU Theatre 2013-2014 Season Location: University Center for the Arts Theatre $15,000 $12,000 $0 $3,000 80% CSU's performances include Tartuffe, Orestes, Little Women, Night of the Iguana, and Alice. Their season also includes a Play Reading series, the Shakespeare Project, workshops and concert versions of Broadway musicals. Debut Theatre 2013-2014 Children's Theatre Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre $4,000 $500 $0 $3,500 13% Debut Theatre will present a season of 6 plays that provide opportunities for school age actors. Foothills Pops Band 2013-2014 Concert Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre and St. John's Lutheran Church $1,500 $500 $0 $1,000 33% Foothills Pops Band offers a season of 5 concerts along with their annual Valentine's Day Dance and Silent Auction. RECOMMENDATION CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD Fort Fund Tier 1: Annual Programming Fort Collins Museum of Art 2013-2014 Exhibition Program Location: Fort Collins Museum of Art $15,000 $13,500 $0 $1,500 90% The FCMOA will present 5 exhibitions and educational programming. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery 2013-2014 Educational Programs Location: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery $15,000 $13,500 $0 $1,500 90% The Education Dept. provides programs for audiences of all ages throughout the year and include: Kids Summer Camps, National Initiatives , Citizen History and Science Initiatives, school tours, and other in-gallery events. Fort Collins Symphony Association 2013-2104 Concert Season Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall $15,000 $12,000 $0 $3,000 80% The Fort Collins Symphony Orchestra will conduct 5 Masterworks Concerts for their season. Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek 2013 Community Events Location: The Gardens on Spring Creek $11,000 $8,000 $0 $3,000 73% The Garden's community events includes 3 family oriented festivals and the Garden of Lights, their annual holiday light display. Front Range Chamber Players 2013-2014 Concert Series Location: St. John's Lutheran Church $3,500 $500 $0 $3,000 14% The Front Range Chamber Players will present professional chamber music at their 4 Series concerts and at their Children's concert. IMPACT Dance Company IMPACT! 2013-2014 Season Location: Various venues within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area $12,500 $7,000 $0 $5,500 56% IMPACT Dance Company's Season of Support includes projects, activities and events that provide an avenue for the community to explore issues in a non-threatening way and offer new perspectives to audiences. Larimer Chorale 2013-2014 Concert Season 37 Location: Lincoln Center, First United Methodist Church, Opera Galleria $15,000 $12,000 $0 $3,000 80% Larimer Chorale is a group of non-auditioned singers that provides live choral music in their season of 4 concerts. OpenStage Theatre & Company 2013-2014 Season Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre and Columbine Health Systems Park $15,000 $13,500 $0 $1,500 90% OpenStage Theatre will present a season of 6 shows. Each production runs 5 weekends with 12 public performances, 1 student preview and 1 corporate performance. Opera Fort Collins 2013-2014 Season 34 Location: Lincoln Center, Griffin Concert Hall/UCA $15,000 $7,500 $0 $7,500 50% The Opera's 34th season includes an American Opera (TBD) , Amahl and the Night Visitors, and Turnadot. DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Helen Matson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-048 Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 906 East Stuart Street to Fort Collins Waldorf Education Association, Inc. for up to Two Years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since August 2006, the City has leased 906 East Stuart to Fort Collins Waldorf Education Association, Inc., known as River Song Waldorf School. River Song Waldorf School continues to meet the national Community Development Block Grant Funding (“CDBG”) criteria by serving a majority (51% or more) of low-moderate income clients below 80% of the Area Median Income. This Resolution authorizes the lease of the property to River Song Waldorf School for an additional two years. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The property at 906 East Stuart was acquired by the City in 1985 for use as a child care facility. CDBG funding was used to purchase the property. City properties purchased with CDBG funding are restricted to a nominal rental rate and must be used by non-profit organizations that meet the CDBG criteria. 906 East Stuart was a private residence at the time of purchase. The building contains a total of 2,071 square feet. The ground floor contains 1,687 square feet and is the main area of use for the school. The second floor, containing 384 square feet, is only accessible from an outside stairway entrance and is used for its office area and storage. The lot size is 0.3 acres. The condition of this facility is fair. River Song Waldorf School has been leasing the property since August 2006. It operates a year-round early childhood program, and other associated uses, for pre-kindergarten children. Due to the requirements from CDBG, the rent for this facility is $5 per year. The market rent would be $1,200 to $1,350 per month if this property was rented as a private residence. The tenant is responsible for utilities, maintenance, and improvements. The City is not responsible for any maintenance expense during the lease. River Song Waldorf School has been a good tenant and has taken good care of the property. In addition to its routine maintenance expenses, it has also replaced the furnace and painted the exterior at its cost. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Tenant is responsible for all maintenance, repair, and necessary upgrades, including, but not limited to, all landscaping maintenance and upkeep (including trees), snow removal, interior and exterior painting, appliances, building systems upkeep, etc. The Tenant pays all utility costs. The Tenant pays $5 per year to the City for leasing the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map RESOLUTION 2013-048 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 906 EAST STUART STREET TO FORT COLLINS WALDORF EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR UP TO TWO YEARS WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the property at 906 East Stuart Street, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (the “Property”), which was purchased with Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funding in 1985 for use as a child-care facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Request for Proposals issued by the City’s Purchasing Department in 2006, Fort Collins Waldorf Education Association, Inc. (“River Song Waldorf School”) proposed to lease the Property for the purpose of early childhood programming and other associated uses; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 2006-087, authorizing the lease of the Property to River Song Waldorf School for up to two years; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 057, 2008, authorizing the lease of the Property to River Song Waldorf School for up to five years; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Property by River Song Waldorf School benefits low- to moderate-income families in Fort Collins by providing them the opportunity to engage in Waldorf education, which use of the Property is consistent with the objectives of the Community Development Block Grant; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that River Song Waldorf School be allowed to continue leasing the Property; and WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement will provide for a two-year lease term in exchange for payment of nominal rent in the amount of $5.00 per year and compliance with certain conditions and restrictions set forth therein; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-114(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council is authorized to lease, for a definite term of two years or less, any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by resolution, that the lease is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that leasing the Property at 906 East Stuart Street under the terms listed above is in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute a Lease Agreement for the Property consistent with the terms of this Resolution, along with such other 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. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Jon Haukass Ken Sampley AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-049 Authorizing the Execution of the First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) was established by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Town of Timnath to fund and implement regional stormwater improvements. Staff recommends approval of the first amendment to the IGA in order to: • Obtain approval of the member governments for the BBRSA to accept a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to fund the design and construction of the remaining projects; • Authorize the BBRSA to determine and make minor revisions to properties within the Service Area of the BBRSA by designating areas as “non-tributary areas”, and to grant fee credits to other areas within the Service Area; and • Establish a sunset provision such that upon completion of the Projects, payment of all debt incurred by the Authority for the construction of the Projects, and agreement among the Members as to any continuing obligation for operation and maintenance of any Authority projects, the BBRSA can be terminated. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On August 20, 2008, the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Town of Wellington entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to establish the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA). The BBRSA was established to fund and implement the regional stormwater improvements outlined in the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan. The stormwater improvements benefit the citizens of Fort Collins through protection of the health, property, safety and welfare of the city and by enhancing the ecological health of Boxelder Creek. It is in Fort Collins’ best interests to participate in the BBRSA in order to: • Make already cost effective improvements more economical by sharing costs; • Reduce substantial public infrastructure costs for road crossings; • Equitably share the cost between participating agencies; • Provide economic benefits by removing undeveloped lands from the 100-Year floodplain; and • Provide a cooperative approach that initiates solutions to stormwater problems in Fort Collin’s Growth Management Area (GMA). The BBRSA has completed the design and construction of the Coal Creek Flood Mitigation Project and has preliminarily designed the two remaining regional stormwater projects which consist of the East Side Detention Facility (also known as the Gray Lakes Project) and the Larimer/Weld Canal Crossing Structure. Timnath (in conjunction with its TDA) has entered into an Intergovernmental Authority with the BBRSA to participate in the funding of the remaining projects. The BBRSA investigated potential funding scenarios (i.e., pay-as-you-go, bonding, loan) and initially recommended in 2011 to the member entities that a bonding approach be pursued. After additional research, the BBRSA determined the most cost efficient method of funding the regional stormwater projects is by obtaining a loan through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”). According to Section 2.05 (f) of the IGA, all member entities must agree to the issuance of debt by the BBRSA. May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 20 On January 17, 2013, representatives from Fort Collins, Larimer, Wellington and Timnath as well as the BBRSA Board of Directors met to discuss the latest estimated regional stormwater project cost estimates, the funding approach, a potential sunset provision, the BBRSA stormwater fee structure, and potential revisions to the BBRSA service area boundary. As a result of those discussions, the BBRSA developed a draft amendment to the IGA that will: • Allow the BBRSA to accept a loan from the CWCB to fund the design and construction of the remaining projects; and • Authorize the BBRSA to determine and make minor revisions to properties within the Service Area of the BBRSA by designating areas as “non-tributary areas”, and to grant fee credits to other areas within the Service Area; and • Establish a sunset provision such that upon completion of the Projects, payment of all debt incurred by the Authority for the construction of the Projects, and agreement among the Members as to any continuing obligation for operation and maintenance of any Authority projects, the BBRSA can be terminated. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The BBRSA has preliminarily designed the East Side Detention Facility (Gray Lakes Project) and the Larimer/Weld County Crossing Structure. These are the two remaining projects needed to meet the goals of the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan. Through preliminary design, the total cost of the two projects is estimated to be approximately $9.9 million. The most cost efficient method of funding the projects (and lowest interest rate) is by obtaining a loan through the CWCB. The anticipated interest rate of 2.75% for the CWCB loan is significantly lower than an estimated interest rate of 4.0% for issuance of bonds. The BBRSA will obtain a 20-year loan; however, it may be possible to pay it off in a shorter time period (16-17 years). The loan requires a 10% local match, which will be the responsibility of the BBRSA. In addition to the revenue generated by stormwater fees within the BBRSA service area boundary, the BBRSA has also obtained funding from Timnath. The BBRSA entered into an intergovernmental agreement (Boxelder/Timnath IGA, dated November 15, 2012) with Timnath and its TDA which provides that the TDA shall participate in the funding of the projects. Pursuant to the Boxelder/Timnath IGA, the TDA has transferred $500,000 to the BBRSA for use in the design of the remaining projects. In addition, the TDA will reimburse the BBRSA for 25% of the total costs of the remaining projects. The financial participation by Timnath results in a decrease in the amount of revenue required to be collected by the BBRSA. The combination of annual stormwater service fee revenue collected by the BBRSA and the financial contribution from Timnath provides sufficient funding to cover the on-going costs of the BBRSA and the CWCB loan payment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The IGA contains language that ensures a holistic approach toward stormwater quality best management practices, stream stability, and habitat enhancement. Through reconfiguration of the master plan improvements, most notably increased detention storage at the Gray Lakes Detention Project, the BBRSA is able to eliminate the majority of Middle Basin improvements proposed in the original Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan. As a result, the need to grade or alter the majority of Boxelder Creek south of County Road 50 has been eliminated, thereby protecting the existing stream corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2013-049 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE BOXELDER BASIN REGIONAL STORMWATER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-068, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County and the Town of Wellington to form the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (the “Authority”), to fund and implement the regional stormwater improvements outlined in the Boxelder Regional Stormwater Master Plan (the “Master Plan”); and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2008, the intergovernmental agreement to form the Authority (the “Agreement’) was finalized and signed by all parties, and the administration of the Authority was subsequently organized; and WHEREAS, since its organization, the Authority has completed the design and construction of the Coal Creek Flood Mitigation Project and has preliminarily designed the two remaining regional stormwater projects contemplated in the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to move forward with the remaining projects, the Authority has identified funding in the form of a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”), to be repaid with Authority stormwater fees collected from within the Authority’s service area; and WHEREAS, the Agreement calls for the members of the Authority to approve any borrowing by the Authority; and WHEREAS, in addition to the approval of the proposed borrowing from CWCB, the Board of Directors of the Authority (the “Board”) has recommended that the members of the Authority amend the Agreement to designate certain non-tributary areas and provide for fee credits to areas within the Authority service area that do not contribute stormwater flows to the Basin; and WHEREAS, the Board has further recommended that the members of the Authority amend the Agreement to sunset the Authority upon completion of the remaining Master Plan projects, payment of all debt incurred, and agreement among the members as to continuing obligations for ownership, operation and maintenance of the improvements constructed by the Authority; and WHEREAS, a First Amendment to the Agreement reflecting the recommendations of the Board has been prepared by Authority staff (the “First Amendment”), and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of Wellington has approved the First Amendment in substantially the form attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended that the City Council approve the First Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the approval of the First Amendment is in the best interests of the City in order to facilitate the completion of the Master Plan improvements and provide for the fulfillment by the Authority of its intended purposes and objectives for stormwater improvements in the Boxelder Basin. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the First Amendment and authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the First Amendment on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” together with such additional or modified 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 and advance the purposes set forth in this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 05-10-2013 FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER COOPERATION AND MANAGEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT entered into this ______ day of _____________, 2013, by and among the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, (the “County”), the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (the “City”), and the TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO, a statutory municipality (the “Town”), collectively referred to as the “Members”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Members entered into the Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation and Management on August 20th, 2008 (the “IGA”) for the purpose of creating the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has, pursuant to the Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan dated October 2006 (“Master Plan”), proceeded to construct and complete the Coal Creek Flood Mitigation Project; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that two remaining projects are necessary to meet the flood mitigation and drainage goals of the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority has preliminarily designed the East Side Detention Facility also known as the Gray Lakes Project and the Larimer/Weld County Crossing Structure (the “Projects”) which are the two projects the Authority has determined need to be constructed to meet the goals of the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined, through preliminary design, that the cost of the Projects is estimated at $9.9 million; and WHEREAS, the Authority has entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement dated November 15, 2012, (the “Timnath IGA”) between the Authority and the Timnath Development Authority of Colorado (“TDA”) which provides that TDA shall participate in the funding of the Projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Timnath IGA, the TDA has transferred $500,000 to the Authority for use by the Authority in the continuing design of the Projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Timnath IGA, the TDA will reimburse the Authority for 25% of the costs of the Projects incurred after the transfer of the $500,000 to the Authority; and EXHIBIT A 2 WHEREAS, the Authority has determined the most cost efficient method of funding the Projects is obtaining a loan through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”); and WHEREAS, the CWCB loan requires a 10% local match resulting in a $9.0 million loan. This match will be the responsibility of the Authority with TDA reimbursing the Authority 25% of the match pursuant to the Timnath IGA; and WHEREAS, the Authority has met with the Members and reviewed the design and construction of the Projects, the funding of the Projects, and the terms and conditions of the proposed loan from CWCB; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Members amend the IGA to allow the Authority to move forward with the funding and construction of the Projects; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Projects, payment of all debt incurred by the Authority for the construction of the Projects, and agreement among the Members as to any continuing obligation for operation and maintenance of any Authority projects, there is no longer any need to continue with the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Members have also determined that the Authority should have the right to make minor revisions to properties within the Service Area of the Authority by designating areas as “non-tributary areas”, and grant fee credits to other areas within the Service Area; and WHEREAS, the Members have determined to enter into this First Amendment in order to address the funding and construction of the Projects, the granting to the Authority the right to provide fee credits to appropriate properties within the Service Area, and the termination of the Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Members hereto agree as follows: 1. Article II of the IGA shall be amended by the addition of Section 2.10 to read as follows: Section 2.10 Service Area Revisions. The Authority shall have the authority to make minor revisions to the Service Area by designating properties as “Non- Tributary Properties” or grant fee credits to other properties within the Service Area as follows: 3 (a) The Authority may, on a case by case basis, determine that individual properties in the Service Area are not tributary to the Boxelder Basin; and based upon that determination, remove those properties from the Service Area of the Authority. Any such removal shall be communicated to the Members in order for the individual Member to make appropriate adjustment in its fee structure. (b) The Authority may designate areas in the Service Area as “100 percent fee credit” properties based upon the following criteria: 1. There are properties located within the Service Area which as of the date of this Amendment drain into Soil Conservation Service/Natural Resources Conservation Service dam-impounded lakes and decreed irrigation reservoirs that in 100 year storm event release upstream waters at a rate less than or equal to the release from an historic two year storm event. This effectively provides mitigation of downstream flood damage. These properties are eligible for 100% fee credit on the annual stormwater service fee as long as these conditions continue. 2. If a residential (dwelling) or commercial structure lies within a sub-basin area that drains to a lake, pond and/or depressed feature, which does not contribute runoff to the Boxelder Basin during a 100 year storm, the sub- basin shall be considered to be a non-tributary sub-basin and the individual property containing the residence (dwelling) or commercial structure is eligible for 100% fee credit on the annual stormwater service fee as long as the conditions do not change. The criteria for the Authority’s determination of such a sub-basin area being a non-tributary sub-basin is set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (c) If the Service Area boundary intersects any portion of a residential (dwelling) structure, then the property upon which the residence is located shall be assessed 50% of the annual stormwater service fee. (d) All fee credits shall be given on a calendar year basis. The Authority shall provide each individual Member with the 100% fee credit and 50% assessed properties located within each Member’s jurisdiction for the purpose of allowing the Member to calculate credits for any properties entitled to fee credits. 2. The IGA shall be amended by the addition of the following two Articles: 4 ARTICLE IX EAST SIDE DETENTION FACILITY/GRAY LAKES AND LARIMER/WELD COUNTY CANAL CROSSING STRUCTURE PROJECTS FUNDING. Section 9.01 The Members hereby agree to authorize the Authority to apply for and receive a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board for the design and construction of the Projects upon the following terms and conditions: (a) The amount of the loan from the CWCB shall not exceed the principal sum of $9 million. (b) The Authority shall be responsible for the local match which is 10% of the principal sum of the loan. The 25% TDA reimbursement shall be shall be part of the local match. (c) The term of the loan shall not exceed fifteen (15) years. (d) The interest rate on the loan shall not exceed 2.75% APR. (e) The Members shall provide any documentation or authority required by the CWCB of the Members for the Authority to obtain and close this loan. ARTICLE X TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY Section 10.01 The Members agree that the Authority shall terminate upon the occurrence of the following events: (a) Completion of the East Side Detention Facility/ Gray Lakes and Larimer/Weld County Canal Crossing Structure projects. (b) Payment in full of the loan from the CWCB and any other obligations of the Authority. (c) Agreement among the Members with regard to any continued obligation of the Authority which extends beyond the termination of the Authority including, but not limited to, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the 5 Coal Creek Flood Mitigation, the East Side Detention Facility/ Gray Lakes, and Larimer/Weld County Canal Crossing Structure projects. (d) Agreement among the Members as to payment of any Authority obligation to the Members for matching funds of the Members for the FEMA Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant in the approximate amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). (e) Agreement among the Members as to the disbursement of any revenues of the Authority which remain after the Authority has finalized all of the administrative and organizational requirements necessary to terminate the Authority including, but not limited to, any required budgets, audits, and filings with any state or federal authority. Upon the occurrence of all of the above contingencies, the Authority shall terminate. 3. This Amendment shall be effective upon the execution of the First Amendment by all of the Members. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO By: Chair ATTEST: Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Assistant County Attorney 6 THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Deputy City Attorney THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO A Statutory Municipality By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Town Attorney 7 EXHIBIT A Policy for Non-Tributary Sub-Basin: If a residential (dwelling) or commercial structure lies within a Sub-Basin area that drains to a lake, pond and/or a depressed feature that can be shown to not contribute runoff to the Boxelder Basin during a 100-year storm, then the Sub-Basin will be considered to be a Non-Tributary Sub-Basin and the owner of the residential (dwelling) or commercial structure will be given a 100% fee credit on the annual stormwater service fee as long as the conditions don’t change. Option A: The following method can be used to determine if the Sub-Basin area in question is a Non-Tributary Sub-Basin: Step 1: Determine the entire drainage area for the basin, using the best available topographic data. . Step 2: Determine the percent impervious area for the entire drainage area based on best available aerial imagery. Using Table RO-5 in Volume 1 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual determine the associated ‘C’ value for Type C and D soils (Table attached). Step 3: Using the Rational Method Formula: Q=ciA Determine the volume of runoff for the closed basin area assuming a 2-hour design storm with a total depth of 3.67 inches. Multiply the volume by 2 to account for prior rainfall events. Step 4: Determine the volume of storage available within the pond, lake or depressed area being sure to account for the normal water surface elevation if there is one. Step 5: Compare the volume of runoff with the volume of storage available. If the volume of runoff is less than the volume of storage then the basin is a Non- Tributary Sub-Basin. Option B: The property owner can hire an engineer to prepare a ModSWMM computer model of the basin and storage area and prove through modeling that the basin is Non- Tributary. The Authority may require a property receiving a fee credit draining to a Non-Tributary Sub-Basin to provide a legal easement which permanently dedicates the available storage volume for stormwater management purposes. DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Darin Atteberry AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-050 Nominating Mayor Karen Weitkunat as a Candidate for Re-election to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution formally endorses the nomination of Mayor Karen Weitkunat as a candidate to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. Mayor Weitkunat is an active participant and continues to represent the City well as a member of the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2013-050 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS NOMINATING MAYOR KAREN WEITKUNAT AS A CANDIDATE FOR RE-ELECTION TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WHEREAS, the City is a member-city of the Colorado Municipal League; and WHEREAS, Mayor Karen Weitkunat has served very ably on the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board for the past two years, representing municipalities over 65,000 population; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that Mayor Weitkunat would again be an excellent candidate for the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League and wishes to endorse Mayor Weitkunat for the upcoming election to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Council hereby formally endorses and nominates Mayor Karen Weitkunat as a candidate for re-election to the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Courtney Levingston Joe Olson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s March 21, 2013 Decision to Approve the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi- family buildings, with a total of 57 units divided among one, two and three-bedroom apartments for a total of 97 bedrooms. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Zone District and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. On April 4, 2013, Joel Rovnak (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal, alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading when approving the Project Development Plan application. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Applicant submitted a traffic impact study as part of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application and the traffic impact study was accepted by the City Traffic Engineer. The traffic impact study was provided to the Planning and Zoning Board as an attachment to the staff report for consideration. The staff report to the Board included analysis of how the Project Development Plan complied with the Land Use Code’s transportation Level of Service requirements (Staff Report, pg. 10). Under the appeals procedure contained in the City Code, the appeal is required to be considered upon the record, 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 City 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. 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 6 - 0 to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application with conditions. In support of its motion to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 13 of the staff report. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 26 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL 1. The traffic impact study falsely attributes data to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board considered the traffic impact study which contained information relating to estimated trip generation which was substantially false and grossly misleading. The traffic impact study was included in the Planning and Zoning Board’s packet for consideration in its decision making, although the Board did not discuss the specific details of the traffic impact study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the data contained in the traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 2. Traffic projections were further reduced for alternative modes of transportation. In the notice of appeal, the Appellant asserts that the information contained in the traffic impact study was further skewed by a 25% reduction in trips to account for alternative modes of transportation. The traffic impact study was included in the Planning and Zoning Board’s packet for consideration in its decision making, although the Board did not discuss the 25% trip reduction contained in the study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the 25% trip reduction contained in the traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 3. Fort Collins Traffic Operations has established a policy that discriminates against student housing. The Appellant asserts that the City and/or the traffic consultant used a recent study of student housing trip generation in Minnesota (Spack Memorandum) to estimate trips for the Carriage House Apartments. The Spack Memorandum was provided to the Planning and Zoning Board at its hearing for consideration, although the Board did not discuss the details of the Spack Memorandum during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the Spack Memorandum and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 4. City Council has established policies prohibiting discrimination in multi-family housing. The Appellant asserts that the submitted traffic impact study was flawed because of the use of standards used in outside municipalities that relate to student oriented housing. The traffic impact study and the Spack Memorandum were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration in its decision, however theBoard did not discuss the Spack Memorandum or specifics of the Traffic Impact Study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the submitted traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 5. The negative impacts of artificially reduced traffic projections extend beyond a single proposal. The Appellant asserts that the adjusted trip generation estimates used in traffic impact studies was also prevalent in other project approvals and have a negative impact. The Appellant also maintains that the flawed trip generation will negatively impact Street Oversizing fees collected. May 21, 2013 -3- ITEM 26 The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the impact of trip generation rates contained in the submitted traffic impact study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding trip generation impacts and Street Oversizing fees 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 Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the Board for further consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments 4. Applicant Materials submitted at the Hearing 5. Citizen materials submitted at the Hearing 6. Verbatim Transcript 7. Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Council ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal - Joel Rovnak, filed April 4, 2013 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, Hearing held March 21, 2013 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 2 The proposed three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context by its’ complementary architectural design featuring Craftsman architectural detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south and west. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential with free-stall barns and farm character); S: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential and Bennett Elementary School); E: H-M-N—High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (existing commercial); W: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential neighborhoods) In late 2011, the home located at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for Local Landmark designation by the Landmark Preservation Commission Chair and the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, under the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code. At that time, this decision was not appealable to City Council. Additionally, the Historic and Cultural Resource Section of the Land Use Code (Section 3.4.7) protected the home from being demolished, however the Applicant was still requesting to move forward with the redevelopment application and question of the demolition of the home came before the Planning and Zoning Board in 2012 not as a proposed development plan, but as two stand-alone requests for the modification of standards to Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Board denied the stand-alone modification requests and the Applicant appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld the Board’s denial decision, and instructed Staff to revisit the determination of eligibility section of the Municipal Code. In summer of 2012, changes were made to the Municipal Code relating to the determination of Local Landmark eligibility process. In September 2012, the Applicant provided new information to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the home at 1305 South Shields Street and in October, 2012 the Commission overturned the previous determination that the home was individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation (please see page 5 of the attached Landmark Preservation Commission Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 3 minutes from October, 2012). As the residence at 1305 South Shields Street is no longer eligible for Local Landmark Designation, it can be demolished, as proposed. West Central Neighborhood Plan The proposed project is located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (Adopted, 1999). The West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (WCNP) identifies the subject parcels as a redevelopment area on page 2 of Chapter 3. For WCNP identified redevelopment areas, the predominant uses (in this case single-family) are not considered to be the most appropriate for the future and have potential for selective conversion to more efficient uses. Moreover, the WCNP continues on to state that, “the area along the west side of Shields Street,… are candidates for redevelopment in a manner that allows conversion from (single-family) residential to multi-family residential.” The WCNP calls for redevelopment to create a buffer for the single-family residential neighborhoods to the west from Shields Street. The proposed Project Development Plan is an appropriate redevelopment of the area, and creates buffer in conformance with the adopted policies of the West Central Neighborhood Plan. 2. Compliance with Article Four- Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Standards: As previously mentioned, the site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). The purpose of the N-C-B Zone District is: “…intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.” To the east of the site is a commercial area and Colorado State University; to the west is primarily single family residential. The proposed project fits the intent and purpose of the N-C-B Zone District. A. Section 4.9(B) - Land Use In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, the review and decision making body for multi-family housing projects are governed by the number of dwelling units and the residential net density. The proposed land use is considered multi-family and is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The net area of the PDP is 1.45 acres. As 57 units are proposed, the density is 39.3 dwelling units per net acre. Since the PDP contains more than four dwelling units in one building, at a density of more than 24 dwelling units per net acre, the land use is permitted, subject to review and a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.9(D) - Density Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 4 The N-C-B zone district permits a building to contain an amount of square footage that equals the lot area, which in this case is 64,828 square feet. The proposed square footage combined total is 39,281 square feet, thus complying with the standard. Additionally, the Land Use Code requires there to be a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .33 on the rear 50 percent of the lot, or in this case, 10,433 square feet. The project proposes 10,272 square feet in the rear 50 percent of the lot, for a .325 rear Floor Area Ratio, meeting the standard. C. Section 4.9(D)(6) - Dimensional Standards PDP provides a lot width of approximately 400 feet, meeting the minimum N-BC-B lot width requirement of 50 feet. The project utilizes a contextual front yard setback of 30 feet. The contextual setback provision of Section 3.8.19 states that regardless of the minimum front setback requirement imposed by the zone district standards (in this case 60 feet for areas within the West Central Plan neighborhoods), Applicants are allowed to use a contextual front setback. The setback of the abutting home to the west at 1201Springfield Drive is 30 feet. Therefore, the project meets setback requirements. The PDP provides a 15 foot 5 inch rear yard setback from the property to the south, meeting the minimum requirement of 15 feet. The PDP provides a 76 foot side yard setback along the west side property line and a 27 foot setback along the east property line. This complies with the standard that the side yard setback be a minimum of five feet for the first 18 feet of height and then one additional foot for each two feet of height thereafter. With a building height of 40 feet, the 22 feet over the baseline of 18 feet requires 11 additional feet of side yard setback. The 16 feet consists of five feet plus 11 feet to accommodate a 40 foot high building. The building is three stories in height thus not exceeding the maximum allowed of three stories in height for the N-C-B zone district. D. Section 4.9(E)(1) - Building Design Since the buildings are rectilinear, all exterior walls are constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines. The primary entrances of the buildings are oriented to Springfield Drive. The entrances are enhanced by porches with overhangs. Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 5 The proposed roof pitches for the buildings are 5:12, meeting the minimum roof pitch of 2:12 and within the maximum roof pitch of 12:12. The front elevation features a variety of treatments creating a well- articulated appearance. E. Section 4.9(E)(5) – Site Design In the N-C-B District, permanent off-street parking areas cannot be located any closer to a public street than the distance of the setback of the building and the street. The parking stall furthest to the north is setback approximately 40 feet from the property line and Building 1 is set back 30 feet, satisfying the standard. 3. Compliance with Applicable Article 3 - General Development Standards: As illustrated by the previous section, the N-C-B zone contains numerous specific standards. Where N-C-B Zone District standards of Article Four are more specific or stringent, they prevail over the less specific or stringent standard that may be found in the General Development standards of Article Three, except in the case of the contextual setback regulations. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(C) & (D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The PDP provides full tree stocking and foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the buildings. Existing crabapple trees will be retained. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) – Minimum Species Diversity This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 25 percent of the total number of trees on the landscape plan. The landscape plan proposes 59 new trees, and no more than 15 can be of one species. The most of any one species is the Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry, with 15 trees, complying with the standard. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation Standards Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the Carriage House Apartments PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic, underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 6 slope and aspect of the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water usage for the site is 13.48 gallons per square foot, under the maximum 15 gallons per square foot permitted. The project meets the water conservation standards. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of the projects’ vehicular use area will be effectively screened from the residential uses to the south and west with a combination of plant material featuring evergreen trees and a 6 foot tall wood fence, meeting the requirements of this standard. E. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. This standard requires that existing trees be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. The City Forester conducted an on-site meeting with the Applicant and determined a mitigation schedule. Currently, there are 57 trees existing on this site. For this project, 19 trees will be protected (in place) and 43 trees will be removed. Of these 43 trees to be removed, 15 trees that are proposed to be removed require mitigation. These trees have a mitigation value of 23 trees. The Applicant is providing 28 upsized trees, meeting the mitigation requirement. F. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking, The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development including Colorado State University to the northeast. A new 6 foot attached sidewalk will be constructed along Springfield Drive and a new 6 foot detached sidewalk will be constructed along South Shields Street before joining the existing attached sidewalk along Shields Street. The buildings will feature connecting walkways out to Springfield Drive. In terms of pedestrian connectivity to off-site destinations, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The project meets connectivity requirements. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities This standard requires multi-family residential is required to provide 1 bike parking space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed. The PDP proposes 97 bedrooms and requires 58 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 103 bicycle parking spaces total. Of these spaces, 59 bike parking spaces are Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 7 enclosed, located within the building, and 44 spaces will be distributed among 4 exterior fixed bicycle racks. H. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) – Parking Lots – Required Number of Spaces This Section of the Code states that Multi-family dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. The project provides 58 parking spaces, thus meeting the Land Use Code requirement. The intent of removing the minimum parking requirements in the TOD was to alleviate a barrier to redevelopment in the area, and to reflect the fact that multi-modal travel options were available or planned for those areas. The removal of minimum parking requirements in the TOD was not meant to remove the entire obligation for development-related parking. Instead, the provision was intended to recognize that the need for parking should be a market-based decision based on specific project needs, the surrounding context, and available travel options and facilities. If Carriage House Apartments was held to the required minimum number of spaces as it would be elsewhere in Fort Collins (non-TOD), then a total of 96 parking spaces would be required. Instead, 58 parking spaces are provided and supplemented with both interior and exterior bike parking for 103 bikes. The site is served by Transfort route 19 and a bus stop will be located 20 feet directly east of Building 4. The proposed project encourages alternative modes and further reinforces fundamental polices of City Plan. The table below illustrates how the proposed project compares to existing projects located in the TOD in terms of parking provided. Comparative Parking Analysis for Multi-Family Projects located within the TOD Overlay Zone Project Name Location Units Bedrooms Parking Spaces Provided Parking Required if Not in TOD Pura Vida Apartments 518 W. Laurel 52 units 20 1-bd 16 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 100 49 spaces 90spaces Flats at Oval 306 W. Laurel 47 units 12 1-bd 19 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 96 57 spaces 83 spaces Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 8 Willow Street Lofts 214 Willow 24 units 2 1-bd 22 2-bd Total: 46 35 spaces 42 spaces Proposed: Carriage House Apts. 1305- 1319 S. Shields 57 units 29 1-bd 16 2-bd 12 3-bd Total: 97 58 spaces 96 spaces As illustrated by the table above, the data would suggest that the market response is to provide one parking space per dwelling unit in the TOD. I. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking The code requires 3 handicap parking spaces for projects that provide 51- 75 total parking spaces. The Carriage House Apartments PDP meets the required three handicapped accessible spaces, including one van accessible space. J. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The Applicant submitted a photometric plan and the proposed site lighting complies with the requirements set forth in this section of the Land Use Code. Site lighting will feature down-directional, fully shielded, cut-off fixtures that are consistent in character with the craftsman bungalow style architecture proposed. Public street lighting has been factored into the lighting plan to avoid redundancy. K. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures The proposed trash collection/recycling enclosure satisfies the Land Use Code requirements. A new trash enclosure is proposed on the southwest corner of the site and is approximately 250 square feet in size on a concrete slab. As proposed, the enclosure will be 6 feet in height, constructed of masonry pilasters and cedar lumber. L. Section 3.4.7(F)(5) – Historic Landscaping Existing on-site, there are Crabapple trees along the south side of Springfield Drive, that the City Forester estimates to be around 100 years old. As such, these Crabapple trees will be preserved. M. Section 3.5.1 – Building Project and Compatibility This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established architectural character and context of the general area. The standard also states that where the architectural character is not definitively established, new projects should establish an enhanced Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 9 standard of quality. Moreover, the compatibility standards of this section require that the characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code offers the following definition of the term “compatibility”: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility litmus test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived based on circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The proposed buildings are three-stories (40 feet tall) in height and are compatible with single family homes on Springfield Drive to the east and the two-story (28 feet tall) single-family homes to the south on Bennett Road. The height of the project, in tandem with its location on an arterial, provide an appropriate and compatible transition from the high traffic and commercial east of Shields Street to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods to the west. Instead of one large, massive multi-family structure, the PDP responds to the existing residential character to the north, south and west, by breaking up the project into five smaller buildings that are articulated with front porches assisting with the project blending in with the existing streetscape composition. The architectural character borrows from the Craftsman Bungalow vernacular of the area and sets an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. The primary building material is horizontal lap siding with the inclusion of stone and brick at the base. The buildings are appropriately articulated, further breaking up each building’s mass, as they read more like large single-family homes. Detailing features such as hip and gable roofs, accented window trim and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and reinforce the compatibility of the project with the area. N. Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 10 This standard requires that compatibility be achieved by consideration of scale, form, materials, color, buffer yard and operational standards. Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood compatibility and pertinent issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. As previously stated, it is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of “Compatibility” (above) specifically states that it “…does not mean the same as.” Rather, the Code further breaks the issues down. The PDP has been evaluated by these standards and the PDP is found to be in compliance. O. Section 3.5.2(C) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that every front façade with a primary entrance shall face the public street (smaller than an arterial) and be within 200 feet of a connecting walkway, to the extent reasonably feasible. Buildings 1 – 4 face Springfield Drive and feature porches with entrances and connecting walkways out to the public sidewalk along Springfield Drive. In the case of Building 5, the building has a connecting walkway to the sidewalk along Shields Street. The PDP meets the standards. P. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) memorandum was provided as part of this Project Development Plan. Since the site is close to campus, the standard practice of a 25 percent trip reduction was taken into account for utilization of multi-modal transportation options. The Shields Street and Springfield Drive intersection will operate acceptably based on adopted level of service standards. The TIS shows that the existing single family homes on site generate 28 daily trip ends and the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at 204 daily trip ends. While the traffic on Springfield Drive will increase to the west of the site, it is still commensurate with that expected on a local street. Nevertheless, the project meets the City’s level of service standards. In addition, the PDP is in an area in which a pedestrian and bicycle Level of Service evaluation is required. In terms of pedestrian connectivity and level of service, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The TIS shows that the Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 11 City’s levels of service standards for both pedestrians and bicycles are met. Overall, the Traffic Study concludes that with this project, the future level of service at the Springfield Drive and Shields Street intersection will be acceptable. Q. Section 3.6.5 – Transit Facilities Standards This standard requires new developments to accommodate existing and planned transit routes by providing transit stops and associated facilities. The site is served by Transfort Route 19 on Shields Street with both north and south service. Transfort Route 3 provides northbound service on Shields Street. Both Route 19 and 3 serve the CSU Transit Center. Route 19 runs every 60 minutes year-round and every 30 minutes at AM and PM peak periods during the school year. The PDP provides a Transfort bus stop concrete pad along South Shields Street. The project meets the standards of this Section. R. Section 3.8.30 – Multi-family Dwelling Development Standards Multi-family developments located in the TOD Overlay Zone are specifically exempt from the mix of housing unit types requirement, access to park, central feature or gathering place requirements and the building requirements. The multi- family buildings are not exempt from meeting the block or design standards. S. Section 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements The block requirements mandate multi-family developments to feature a series of blocks, made up of public streets, private streets or street-like private drives, no more than 7 acres in size. The PDP is only 1 block with buildings fronting along Springfield Drive and South Shields Street. The site is 1.48 acres, satisfying the requirements. Section 3.8.30(F) – Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings This Section of the LUC addresses architecture and site design as it relates to multi-family developments. Moreover, this Section is intended to promote variety in multi-family buildings and enhance visual interest, reinforcing architectural elements. (1) 3.8.30(F)(1) – Orientation and Setbacks This standard states that setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single and two-family dwellings is 25 feet. There is an Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 12 abutting single-family home to the south at 1321 South Shields Street. This standard is not applicable because the N-C-B District standards contained in Article 4 would govern the rear/side setback due to Section 3.1.2. This Section states that, “In the event of a conflict between a standard or requirement contained in Article 3 and Article 4, the standard in Article 4 shall prevail.” The N-C-B District requires a 15 foot setback in this instance. The project provides a 15 foot 5 inch setback and meets the requirements. (2) 3.8.30(F)(2)– Variation Among Repeated Buildings These standards require developments containing between 3 – 5 buildings to provide two different building designs with two different muted, color palettes. The project meets this standard by the two different “green” and “white” designs. The green buildings contain 13 and 14 units while the while buildings are smaller and contain 10 units. The green buildings are a total of 8,092 square feet and the white buildings are 7,699 square feet. (3) 3.8.30(F)(4)– Entrances The project provides covered entrances that are visible from Springfield Drive and South Shields Street, meeting the standard. (4) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Roofs The two building designs employ traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs with articulation and accent brackets. Both building designs have low pitches, reflecting the Craftsman style. The secondary roofs transition over the second story balconies. The PDP meets the standard. (5) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Facades and Walls Each multifamily building is articulated with projections and covered entries, assisting with dividing the façade into human-scaled proportions similar to adjacent single family dwellings. There are no blank walls. The PDP complies with the standards. 4. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration: A. Section 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29, 2012. A summary of this meeting is attached. Discussion centered around the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods to the west and south, and the number of parking spaces. Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 13 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In reviewing the request for Carriage House Apartments PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Multi-family dwelling units are a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable provisions of Article Four, District Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan #PDP120035. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan (architectural elevations included) 2. Landscape Plan 3. Tree Mitigation Plan 4. Plat 5. Planning Objectives 6. Traffic Study 7. Minutes from October 10, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission. 8. Notes from the October 29, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting 9. Citizen Comments 12.19.2012 Page 2 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx storage is required on this site. We have provided 59 enclosed spaces within the building structures (we have 97 bedrooms total, so this equates to over 60% of the bedrooms having a storage space under the roof), and additionally, we have located a minimum of 40 fixed bicycle racks outside throughout the site for easy access. Site Plan: The concept of the site design is to allocate the density into structures that are more compatible with the square feet of homes. We have endeavored to maintain space between the buildings as well as gracious set-backs consistent with the adjacent lots. The proposed site layout places the front facades of the buildings toward Springfield to relate to the neighborhood context. We have designed the buildings to have front porches which face the street and to create an inviting sense of arrival. The placement of the buildings and the scale we have developed them at is consistent with intent of the principals and policies outlined in the city plan document which seeks to create a strong streetscape. Our front setback is contextual to the 1201 W. Springfield home immediately to the West, which we have measured at thirty feet. The subject property building façades along Springfield are currently thirty-one feet (31’-0”) from our property line. Our side yard setback is set to fifteen feet (15’-0”) from S. Shields street and our structures are fifteen feet (15’-0”) from the neighboring lot to the South on S. Shields. Building Design and Materials: The architecture is sensitive to the neighborhood context and all of the building facades are well articulated. The style of the buildings is reminiscent of the ‘shingle/ craftsman style’. In this architecture, there is a richness to the material pallet and a sense of crafted details that give a sense of scale to the buildings. The massing of the buildings use traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs, heavy grounded bases, timber bracket details and cozy covered front-porch features. We have used a variety of materials and colors to enhance the articulated facades, creating different textures within a well thought out composition. It is the intent that the two types of buildings are different in their look and material composition, yet that they blend together into one streetscape composition. We have carefully selected a variety of materials to ensure this. These include the following: • White Building: We have designed this building to have a natural color Sunset Stone base with a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. The stone will be similar to Dakota Stone from Masonville which is used on many buildings in the city. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in buff or taupe tones to blend with the natural stone. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is made up of simple asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. • Green Building: This building has a brick base in dark red tone and also has a combination of a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in green tones to contrast with the red brick colors similar to the buildings on the campus of CSU. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. Landscape and Hardscape: The landscape is important to our proposal as well. The site has a beautiful row of Orchard trees to the North along Springfield. We have endeavored to keep these trees and have designed them into the site plan. Additionally, we meet the codes required for landscaping in this zone district with our plan. It is also an important design idea of our proposal that the buildings each have a ‘walk’ that attaches to the sidewalk on Springfield and creates a path to the front porches of each structure. This will be lit with residential style sidewalk lamp post and will create a neighborhood feel. To the North along the parking lot, we will have walks leading to each building and connecting to the parking. Between these walks will be landscape areas with a combination of grass, bushes and trees. 12.19.2012 Page 3 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx Neighborhood Concerns: We have held two neighborhood meetings to inform the community about our plans on this site. The concerns that the neighbors have brought up include the following: • Our design proposal at our first neighborhood meeting was to site 1 large building on the site. After much resistance from the neighbors we are proposing 5 separate buildings. The layout of the buildings on the site will relate to the adjacent single family homes and keep in characteristic of the neighborhood. • Height of the buildings – we have kept the buildings under the 40’ height limit and have reduced the height of the ‘White Building’ to the West so that the project massing steps down a few more feet to the neighbor on that side. • Parking – the neighbors were concerned about residents parking on the street in front of their homes. We have strived to park as many cars onto our site as possible to help keep what we can on our property. We have also provided ample bike racks for the residents. We feel with the location of this property, many of the residents will take public transportation or walk to their destinations. • During our second neighborhood meeting we received comments about the location of our trash enclosure. We have listened to the neighbors and have moved the trash enclosure away from the neighboring properties and located it to the South West of building one. This location is convenient for the tenants as well as the trash truck to enter and exit the site. • We have talked closely with our neighbor to the West and have discussed how to berm up the hill between the property line and our parking to provide a nice landscape buffer. Trees will be located on this berm to help buffer the properties. We will have a six foot high fence along the West and South properties lines to help separate the properties and block the headlights of the cars in the parking lot. Planning Objectives: The City Plan design attributes are listed in the following policies below are the objectives that we have strived to address in this submittal. Policy EH 4.1 -Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas • This development is located on the corner of Springfield Drive and South Shields street which falls into the targeted infill area. The run down houses on the site will be replaced with new houses to connect to the surround neighborhood and offices neighboring the project. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). • The city encourages higher density in locations on transit lines and where existing infrastructure existing. The higher density housing located on this site is in close proximity to the university for easy access for tenants Policy LIV 6.1 -Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas • Expand underutilized parcels that are surrounded by existing residential development. The multi family development will add more dwelling units to the area while reflecting the neighborhoods character. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing • The development provides 57 units and 97 bedrooms to help add to and maintain an adequate supply of multi- family units. Policy LIV 7.7 –Accommodate the Student Population • This development helps to bring more apartments to the area and place students into appropriate housing types versus neighboring single family homes located near the university. Policy LIV 10.1 -Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets 12.19.2012 Page 4 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • No new streets will be built to complete this development. The existing streets will be enhanced by abiding to the latest ROW standards and incorporating existing trees on the site to enhance the new sidewalks. Policy LIV 22.1 –Vary Housing Models and Types • The development consists of 5 buildings that incorporate the detail of craftsman style architecture. The variation in details, colors, balconies and roofs bring a variation to the streetscape. The style of building reflects similar styles located in the neighborhood. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design • The project has developed 5 multi-family homes versus 1 large building on the site. Each building has its own carriage style street lamp post leading up to the buildings front porches. These characteristics reflect the neighboring single family homes. Policy LIV 43.3 - Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns • The corner of South Shields and Springfield is an ideal site to support transit supportive development patterns. We are located near transit and close to bike trails for the apartment users to have easy access to. Policy T3.4 -Travel Demand Management • Our site is located close to the University which will help manage development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence West Central Neighborhood Design Attributes Policy PD 4 - Pedestrian priority areas along the site will have new sidewalks with wider widths to make safer pedestrian traffic around the site and through it. Policy F7 - Endorses higher density near the University. Our site is in close proximity to the campus as well as has connections to transit and bike lines to encourage a safe site for student housing. HO 4 - Encourages multi-family development in deteriorated properties close to CSU which is what our project is doing. Future Housing Needs (B) - Encourages small scale apartment buildings to reflect with the surrounding buildings Housing Design (B) – Our development is in close proximity to CSU and will be student apartments which are encouraged to be 3 stories or more. With our project along Shields street and near other residential we thought that 3 stories was the appropriate scale for the site and to maximize student housing that is desired. Project Data: Below is the relevant project data for this submittal: • Applicant: Catamount Properties, Ltd 7302 Rozena Drive Longmont, CO 80503 Charles Bailey • Project Name: Carriage House Apartment Homes • Address: 1305- 1319 S. Sheilds Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 12.19.2012 Page 5 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • Zoning: NCB with TOC overlay • Site Area: 64,828 SF (1.48 AC) • Gross Building area: 39,281 SF is less than 64,828 SF • Rear Site (back 50%) Area: 10,272 SF is less than (.33 of 31,614 SF = 10,433 SF) • Proposed Density: 38.5 DU/AC with 57 units • Proposed Height: Buildings do not exceed 40’-0” max height limit • Building Setbacks: Springfield – Front setback is contextual at 30’-0”. Side and Rear are set at 15’-0” • Proposed Building Coverage: 15,927 SF • Proposed Parking and Drives Coverage: 17,334 SF • Proposed Open Space/Landscape Coverage: 26,215 SF • Parking: 62 spaces total are located on the site • No new streets are a part of this proposal • Open space is calculated as 40.4% of the site. • There are no wetlands or other natural features that are impacted by this development. • The development will be maintained by the ownership group and a professional management company. • No commercial use is proposed on the site. We look forward to reviewing our project development plan submittal in greater detail with you. If you should have any questions or need additional information do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, Rebecca Stone, AIA, Principal OZ Architecture of Denver, Inc 3003 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303-861-5704 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Harmony Corridor Plan I-25 Subarea Plan North College Corridor Plan Prospect Road Streetscape Plan South College Corridor Plan Downtown Plan East Side Neighborhood Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Northside Neighborhoods Plan Northwest Subarea Plan West Side Neighborhood Plan West Central Neighborhoods Plan 00.0.25 511.52 Miles © Subarea Plans These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Growth Management Area Subarea Plans Printed: March 03, 2011 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Structure Plan. In areas termed “low density mixed use district,” acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections along arterial streets during the peak hours, is defined as level of service F, which is considered to be normal in an urban environment. The Shields/Springfield intersection operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Figure 3 shows the site plan for Carriage House Apartments. Carriage House Apartments will consist of 57 apartment units (97 beds). Carriage House Apartments will be marketed toward CSU students. Access to Carriage House Apartments will be via a driveway on Springfield Drive. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used as the reference document in calculating the trip generation. Persons (beds) was used as the trip generation variable. Since this site is close to the Colorado State University campus, a reduction (25%) was taken for the apartment trips that are expected to walk or bike to and from this site. Table 2 shows the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments. This trip generation was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. The trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at: 204 daily trip ends, 27 morning peak hour trip ends, and 31 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Using the cited reference document, the three single family homes generates: 28 daily trip ends, 2 morning peak hour trip ends, and 3 afternoon peak hour trip ends. It is expected that the proposed Carriage House Apartments will generate more traffic than the existing land use. One of the single family homes has direct access to Shields Street, a four-lane arterial street. The Shields Street access will be closed. Removing direct access to an arterial street is viewed as favorable from a traffic operations perspective. In addition to this, the number of driveways on Springfield Drive will be reduced to one and located approximately 400 feet from Shields Street. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 4. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the site generated traffic assignment of Carriage House Apartments. Figure 6 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2017) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. The counted traffic was increased at the rate of 1 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably with the existing control and geometry. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 7 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Table 4 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Appendix E. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably during the peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 8 shows the short range (2017) geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. This is the existing geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Traffic on Springfield Drive will increase slightly to the west of this site. However, it will be commensurate with that expected on a local street. The Carriage House Apartments site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Carriage House Apartments. The Carriage House Apartments site is located within an area termed as “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories except street crossing, which is B. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Carriage House Apartments: 1) the Colorado State University Campus area and residential area to the east of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the north of the site, and 4) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. There are small commercial components in destination areas 1, 3, and 4. It is not likely that there would be much pedestrian affinity between the residents of Carriage House Apartments and the residential neighborhoods in the area. There are crosswalks at the Prospect/Shields and Elizabeth/Shields signalized intersections. There is a striped crosswalk, across Shields Street, at the Shields/Lake intersection. This crosswalk has a pedestrian signal. Currently, there are sidewalks adjacent to the site along Shields Street and Springfield Drive. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Carriage House Apartments. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two bicycle destinations: Colorado State University Campus and Bennett Elementary School. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. This site connects directly to bike lanes on Shields Street, which achieves level of service B, as shown in Appendix F. Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 3 and 19, which serve the CSU Transit Center. It is expected that transit level of service will be acceptable. It is concluded that, with development of Carriage House Apartments, the future level of service at the Shields/Springfield intersection will be acceptable. The recommended geometry is shown in Figure 8. The level of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes will be acceptable. SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields Springfield Drive AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/24 1103/1278 7/12 760/1227 6/13 21/21 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield EB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT A B TABLE 2 Carriage House Apartments Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 97 Beds Eq. 272 Eq. 7 Eq. 29 Eq. 26 Eq. 14 25% Reduction for Alternative Modes 68 2 7 6 3 Total 204 5 22 20 11 Springfield Drive TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street SITE 10% 45% 45% Springfield Drive AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 2/9 2/9 10/5 10/5 1/2 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/25 1159/1343 7/13 799/1290 6/14 22/22 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B TABLE 4 Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT D F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B Springfield/Site Access WB LT/T A A (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 6/34 1159/1343 9/22 799/1290 16/19 32/27 28/36 1/2 11/38 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive SHORT RANGE (2017) GEOMETRY Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street Site Access - Denotes Lane APPENDIX A 1 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B 6 7 APPENDIX C 8 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent Am Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 21 4 1103 760 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 25 5 1298 894 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1557 451 902 0 0 0 Stage 1 898 - - - - - Stage 2 659 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 103 556 749 - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 476 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 102 556 749 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 102 - - - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 473 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 280 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.837 - 19.5 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.006 - 0.113 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.019 - 0.379 - - 9 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 13 21 24 1278 1227 12 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 15 25 25 1345 1348 13 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2078 681 1361 0 0 0 Stage 1 1355 - - - - - Stage 2 723 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 46 393 501 - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 441 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 44 393 501 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 44 - - - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 419 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 66 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 97 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.567 - 66 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.05 - 0.412 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.159 - 1.7 - - 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 11 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment 12 APPENDIX D 13 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 22 4 1159 799 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 26 5 1364 940 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1636 474 948 0 0 0 Stage 1 944 - - - - - Stage 2 692 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 92 537 720 - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 458 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 537 720 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 91 - - - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 262 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.033 - 20.7 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.007 - 0.126 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.02 - 0.425 - - 14 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 14 22 25 1343 1290 13 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 26 26 1414 1418 14 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2184 716 1432 0 0 0 Stage 1 1425 - - - - - Stage 2 759 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 39 373 470 - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 423 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 37 373 470 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 37 - - - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 400 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 88.6 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 82 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.113 - 88.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.056 - 0.516 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.177 - 2.215 - - 15 APPENDIX E 16 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 16 32 6 1159 799 9 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 19 38 7 1364 940 11 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1642 476 951 0 0 0 Stage 1 946 - - - - - Stage 2 696 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 535 718 - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 456 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 90 535 718 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 90 - - - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 452 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 29.6 0.1 0 HCM LOS D A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 202 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.064 - 29.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.01 - 0.28 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.03 - 1.098 - - 17 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 19 27 34 1343 1290 22 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 22 32 36 1414 1418 24 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2209 721 1442 0 0 0 Stage 1 1430 - - - - - Stage 2 779 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 38 370 466 - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 413 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 35 370 466 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 35 - - - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 381 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 130 0.3 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 75 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.367 - 130 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.077 - 0.722 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.248 - 3.385 - - 18 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 28 1 4 11 2 20 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 33 1 5 13 2 24 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 34 0 57 34 Stage 1 ---- 34 - Stage 2 ---- 23 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 950 1039 Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 1000 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 947 1039 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 947 - Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 997 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 1.9 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1030 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.288 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.025 - - 0.003 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.077 - - 0.009 - 19 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 36 2 18 38 1 10 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 42 2 21 45 1 12 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 44 0 130 43 Stage 1 ---- 43 - Stage 2 ---- 87 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 864 1027 Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 936 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 852 1027 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 852 - Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 923 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 2.4 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1008 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.333 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.013 - - 0.014 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.039 - - 0.041 - 20 APPENDIX F 21 SCALE: 1"=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 22 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Pedestrian district Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum A A B A A 1 Actual A A B A A CSU/residential to the east Institutional/ Residential Proposed A A B A A Minimum A A B A A 2 Actual A A A A A Residential to the west Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 3 Actual A A A A A Residential to the north Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 4 Actual A A A A A Residential to the south Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum 5 Actual Proposed Minimum 6 Actual Proposed Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 23 SCALE: 1"=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 24 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service – Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C B B Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification 1 Colorado State University Institutional B B B 2 Bennett Elementary School Institutional B B B 3 4 25 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Carriage House Apartments, 1305 – 1319 South Shields Street MEETING DATE: October 29, 2012 APPLICANT: Charles Bailey, Developer, Catamount Properties CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston, City Planner, City of Fort Collins The meeting commenced at 6:00 p.m. with an introduction of City Staff and the Applicant’s team. After the introduction, City Staff explained the City’s review process as it relates to this development proposal and explained opportunities for citizens to engage in the process. At 6:20 p.m. the Applicant gave a project description and then took questions, comments and input from citizens as well as responding to questions and comments. The meeting adjourned around 7:27 p.m. Unless otherwise noted, all responses to questions and comments are from Mr. Charles Bailey, Principal, Catamount Development. Q: Is the application the same as development plans? When the application is put in, we’ll know what is in the plan? A: (City Planner) Yes. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 2 | P a g e Q: Why was the cooling off period May-October when the Landmark Preservation Commission decision was in October? A: (City Planner) Landmark Preservation Commission decisions are independent of the development cooling off period. The determination of eligibility process is located in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The “cooling-off” period is in the Land Use Code and applies to Development Review applications. The applicant applied for a “stand-alone” modification of standards to Planning & Zoning board, which was appealed April 3 rd . The “cooling off” period was Q: TOD code provision (LUC 3.10) shall include convenient outdoor area – what is the designated transit station for this area? A: (City Planner) That code provision applies to projects south of Prospect Road. The TOD parking requirements are not located in Section 3.10, they are located in Section 3.2 and are part of the General Development Standards. Q: Is there a section of the code that includes north of Prospect Road? A: (City Planner) Article 3 of the Land Use Code, the General Development Standards, minus Section 3.10, applies to north of Prospect Road and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards. Q: Is there a main entrance off Springfield? A: Yes. C: I am concerned about the entrance being located on curve. Visibility will be difficult and I think there is a high potential for accidents. The fence on other side of the street was previously knocked down. Slowing bumps make it better. There are 20-25 cars parked on the street on a normal day. This project adding parked cars, in conjunction with the curve of Springfield Drive, creates a high potential for accidents. With 50 spaces proposed, there will be at least an additional 50 cars parking on the street & parking/traffic issues. A: Each building has 10 units. There are 5 buildings proposed for 50 units and about 100 beds. At Pure Vida, for example, not all residents have cars. Q: Coming off Springfield Drive onto Shields Street is adding a lot of traffic and there is also Bennett Elementary nearby. With this proposal, it will be even more difficult to make a left-hand turns going northbound onto Shields Street. Q: Will each unit be a 2-bedroom unit? Bedroom numbers have a profound impact on the neighborhood. A: The bedroom count is not finalized at this time. It will be a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, for about 100 bedrooms. When the submittal is made, number of bedrooms will be known. Q: Is there a maximum number of units based on acreage? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 3 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards regulate density in this instance. It states that 24 units/acre and below, an administrative hearing, above and a Planning & Zoning Board hearing. The site is about 1.5 acres. 50 dwelling units/1.5acres is about 33 du/acre – that would mean a P&Z Hearing. C: This is the same plan as last time. The neighborhood had concerns of height (3- story buildings not fitting in the neighborhood and the number low number of parking spaces). I appears as though the concerns from neighborhood were ignored. A: (Developer) Neither is a code element. There are issues on the development end when taking height into consideration. C: There are single story buildings across the street from site and in the surrounding areas adjacent to the project. The doctor’s office across street is single story. The office building nearby is two stories. There are no 3-story buildings in this area. Q: What are the density requirements of the code for the site? What was the Code when it was originally developed? There must be some restrictions on number of units. A: (City Planner) No maximum density in terms of specific number of dwelling units. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district regulates density though minimum lot area size and Floor Area Ratio as opposed to strictly limiting the number of units. However, some zoning districts in the City (such as the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District) have density maximums related to number of units. Code came into effect in 1997 and there are frequent changes to the code. Q: How often is the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone evaluated? Why is our area included in TOD even though we are far away from the Mason Corridor? I feel that this inclusion in the TOD doesn’t fit in our Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone with the inclusion of TOD zone with reduced parking requirements. A: (Planning Manager) Property already has an underlying zone assigned to it, in addition the zone can have the TOD overlay if within defined boundaries and brings in new/different requirements. Still using and evaluation the standards adopted by City Council. Q: What defines the TOD overlay? What does it even mean? A: (City Planner) Generally, the TOD boundary runs along the targeted infill and redevelopment areas identified in City Plan (City’s Comprehensive Plan). South of Prospect, there are additional standards that apply to the district. C: (City Planner) The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is evaluating parking and other impacts of student housing in areas around campus. Please contact Beth Sowder in Neighborhood Services from City to become involved in SHAP and provide input regarding this effort. Q: Do the requirements of TOD precede NCB zone district? How does the overlay district interact with NCB district? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 4 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone (NCB) is contained in Article 4 of the Land Use Code and parking requirements are not contained in zone district standards (Article 4), they are contained in Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards of Article 3, General Development Standards. Division 3.2 of the Land Use Code states that in the TOD Overlay, no parking is required. Division 3.10 TOD standards apply to lands south of Prospect Road and the High Density Mixed Use zone district. TOD assists in promoting multi-modal transportation, one of the policies of City Plan. Q: Less than a mile away is single-family development only. How did this get converted to multiple units? A: (City Planner) I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone district was never converted. The NCB has always allowed many uses such as single family homes, duplexes, multi-family, offices, medical clinics, funeral homes – many different types of uses within the NCB zone district are permitted. C: It is my understanding that the last time students surveyed students on if they owned cars, 80% said they bring cars with them. Even if they are riding bikes they need to park their cars somewhere. I believe the TOD and Mason Corridor will require a change of values and education. C: Students have to get to Fort Collins, they have their cars. If parking isn’t required, they will overflow on the public streets. Currently, Springfield Drive is heavily trafficked including many pedestrian, bicycles, skateboarders ect. Cars are being parked somewhere and City is allowing city streets to be overrun by cars on streets. With so many cars parked in front of my house it is difficult to get and out of my driveway, especially with the inability to see over cars, through tinting. A: (Developer) We are planning as much parking as the site will allow. Pure Vida has 47 reserved parking spaces, and the development so far is working well. It may not be the development at hand that is the issue. Commuter students are poaching spaces in residential neighborhoods as they drive into campus. There is no real density around CSU campus and until there is, students will drive in from outlying areas of the community and park their cars in the surrounding neighborhoods. C: I don’t see increasing density as a solution in areas around campus. This project is adding a potential 100 beds and maybe 80 cars. Cars are already lining Springfield Drive. Adding 50 cars could be parking on nearby streets and there aren’t many parking spaces. It will be difficult and dangerous to drive down our streets. There are safety issues for neighborhood children and college students. Springfiled Drive and Shields are already busy streets and increasing density in the areas dangerous situation to put people in. Q: You (developer) have been talking about the proposal for a year. There is a commitment in terms of time and cost and understanding the nuances of the process. We understand that development occurs and projects need to be viable. As more Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 5 | P a g e becomes clear in the plans, we would like to feel an assurance that you are listing to us and taking into account neighborhood suggestions. This will make it more livable for neighbors when you take our concerns into account. Q: (Developer) Has anyone been designated from the neighborhood as a spokesman? A designated person can help facilitate communication. A: (Citizens) After the meeting, we will look into designating one for you. C: I disagree about a lack of density near the university. Mulberry to Prospect & Shields to Taft is one of the most heavily populated square miles in the City. There are a lot of townhomes, duplexes, apartments. A: (Developer) Density is relative. Looking at 7 universities, only Laramie has less density than Fort Collins. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Kansas State has more density. This is what is happening (density) on Laurel Street and it is positive for the community. Densification allows students to live near campus and walk to CSU. Q: Assuming the project goes ahead, and creates a problem on Springfield Drive– can the city do anything about temporary parking or discourage what may happen with overflow from this project? A: (Planning Manager) Usually what happens is someone makes a phone call, and then enforcement happens. Over the years, there has been creative solutions, depending on location and land-uses opportunities for shared parking with adjoining uses. For example, residential units and nearby offices can share parking because they have different peak uses periods so a private shared parking agreement may be an option. Parking issues are somewhat difficult to deal with once units are already established. Onsite property management may be the first to hear complaints and then City. Students can be creative when finding parking spaces. This is a topic everyone in the vicinity of campus has to deal with. Q: Who do we approach to look into these solutions? A: The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is exploring idea of neighborhood parking permits and signage. Contact Beth Sowder to provide inputs/comments. SHAP is going up for Council consideration. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 6 | P a g e A: (Developer) We would endorse neighborhood parking decals. The problem may be Students and CSU staff from outside neighborhoods poaching parking spaces. These types of developments are desirable as they are close to campus. C: There are two huge CSU parking lots that are never full. One where they will be building stadium and off-college at west Lake. We need to ask CSU to get involved. CSU may not want to pay for the improvements, there parking lot fees force users to park in nearby neighborhoods. CSU has Emily Allen paid part time and she should be involved if students are not required to buy parking. Students save money by parking in the neighborhoods. Please pass this feedback onto SHAP. Q: Will there be onsite management? A: (Developer) Undecided at this point. We will look at if it is valuable. Another layer of supervision. One possible option could be that we could split management between Pure Vida and this development. C: On site management would be a good idea being that this project is so close to an elementary school so the school isn’t dragged into college antics. Q: Who considers the movement of people across Shields? It is incredibly difficult to get across the street to CSU. I am concerned for the new residents, CSU users, school kids and parents. How will adding another 100 students to the area going to increase safety in terms of crossing Shields? This is a very dangerous situation and a safety issue. A: (Developer) At Pure Vida, there was no access point across Laurel. A mid-block crossing (flashing light) was installed and helps break traffic speed at the location (Sherwood & Laurel). A: (City Planner) In addition to the application form, a traffic study will be required that looks at vehicular, pedestrian & bicycle traffic. How they move from place to place will be evaluated. Pure Vida may have be a tipping point in helping to get a mid-block crossing on Laurel Street. Q: Would you (the Developer) be an advocate of a similar mid-block crossing device? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 7 | P a g e A: I would try and help persuade the City. Q: You mentioned a plaza/common area on the back of the property. Parking impacts west/south side neighbors. Are there any plans for buffering those living next to the development from large gatherings, noise, headlights? You need to provide consideration for those living in the neighborhood. A: The plaza is a sitting area, gathering place. There will be community WiFi like at Pure Vida. It provides an opportunity for residents to take their laptops outside. No plans yet and we are looking for input. This plan would meet City requirements for landscaping the perimeters. C: People’s housing right next to the site and needs to be taken into consideration. A: This will be a professionally managed property and there will be no renting by the bed. We take this very seriously. This is a $10 million asset and we intend to manage it well. There will not be large gatherings if we can help it. Q: I have more questions regarding onsite management. Can you speak more about that? A: We will never have someone onsite 24 hours a day. Carriage House Apartments will have professional policies and we will enforce those policies. We do not allow smoking or pets or allow loud noise/music. This will be a high-end student housing community and can’t allow several bad apples to ruin the experience for others. C: Springfield Drive is a springboard for roaming freshman, looking for parties. If there are parties at the development, it can quickly grow. A: I can’t guarantee there won’t be parties. If a party gets out of hand it would be a lease violation and we would strictly enforce it. C: The police are so busy downtown they do not have time to take care of these issues on Springfield. The driveway of the project could be a congregating space. Students could be making a big circuit and students alert each other to this complex from Thursday-Saturday nights. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 8 | P a g e A: We will have exterior cameras to watch the parking lot for these reasons, including car vandalism. In the past at other properties we have looked at film when assessing lease violations. Q: Pure Vida comes right up to fence on Bluebird. The house on Bennett to the south of the project will be highly impacted by this project. What is the buffer from a backyard fence to the parking lot? What is the required buffer? There are trees right now on the site and homes close to the road. A: Building is 15 feet from site boundary, parking lot 5 feet. A fence/landscaping to help screen headlights. Q: If we meet again, will the next plan be radically different from what is shown, or marginally different? A: The plan will differ in terms of better detail, and an understanding of how buildings fit together. We are committed to smaller, separate buildings (as shown). This design will be a better match with the articulation, elevations to make them look like large homes. Q: What about those people with the greatest impact, will there be any compensation for the dust/noise/construction/overall long term negative impact of the development on our area? There will be trash from construction workers and I notice it can get messy around construction sites. I would like to ask you for compensation for the disruption this project will cause. A: We film the construction site to police it. There will be an erosion fence & fence around the site to mitigate dust and disturbance. Q: I would like to hear more about the proposed character of the development. What mitigates that these are 3-stories and nearby structures are 2-stories or less. I am concerned with the proportions and massing. A: We only have rudimentary drawings currently. Envision buildings with portions and articulation; they won’t be boxes. There will be differentiated roofs. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 9 | P a g e Q: Would you be agreeable to another meeting when plans are further along to comment on elevations/site plan? These plans are not far enough along to inform neighborhood. A: Yes. When the plans are submitted those details will be available. I am happy to attend another meeting. C: The neighborhood is asking you to consider single and double-story nature of the neighborhood and the surrounding buildings. Look at privacy and forestry issues to help fit in with the neighborhood as plans move forward. A: We are trying to save as many of the trees as possible and large evergreen on the corner. A lot of trees on site are nuisance trees such as Siberian Elms. Q: Is it possible this project will be built to resell and maximize your investment? What does your company do? A: We do not have a general agenda. It depends on the cycle and what the investment world/potential looks like. A tsunami of apartments in Fort Collins and it doesn’t take a lot to overbuild. We will gauge the market then evaluate our options. Q: Is it possible that this project will be resold and then the neighborhood will be dealing with a different management company with completely different viewpoints than yours? A: It is certainly possible. This project is designed as a high-end apartment community and is unlikely to be sold and run it into the ground. C: If the demand isn’t there, there will be cut-rate bargains to move into the property. A: People have to service debt obligations and can’t reduce rents too low. Q: What is the history of Catamount Properties and your experience? Do you currently own anything other than Pure Vida on West Laurel Street? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 10 | P a g e A: Catamount is a personal company and we have been in business since 1991 and I am the sole proprietor for over 10 years. My previous experience is in building condominiums. This is my second apartment building built. A: Catamount Properties is not building the multi-family near DQ (Choice Center). That is Catamount Construction. Different company. C: The community recognizes a project is going to happen, but the neighborhood wants to be assured you care about the neighborhood and have invested and built the community. We want to make sure there are not so many people that it ruins the community and our neighborhood. The neighborhood wants their concerns taken into consideration. I am not coming away from this meeting feeling that my concerns are being adequately and appropriately addressed by you. A: I do want to take concerns in. I voluntarily met with the neighborhood in August 2011. We are going to pursue a 3-story development. If the neighborhood is going to try and defeat project on historic preservation issues or 3-story issues; you are not going to get there. However we can work together to find solutions on other issue the neighborhood may have. C: This neighborhood has not behaved as badly as others of contentious projects such as the Grove. The City wasn’t even aware of meeting you held in August 2011. The previous meeting created some distrust. What was the purpose of that meeting? We will look into appointing a community spokesman for the developer. A: The meeting in August of 2011 was a well-intended meeting of trying to present self to neighborhood proactively. I am not trying to end-run the system – I gave out contact information, but City would not have endorsed meeting as there was not a concept plan yet. A: What came out of the meeting in August 2011 was not to have a huge building, and we spoke of parking issues. Those issues have been ignored even before there were drawings. A: The code allows for a 3-story building and as it is in TOD, so it does not have to have 100 spaces. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 11 | P a g e C: An opportunity to sit down and talk about these issues – possibly having a spokesperson or a few people to discuss issues. C: This is the official neighborhood meeting however that doesn’t preclude other meetings from occurring. We encourage working together and some issues may always have varying opinions. A: (City Planner) I am not certain when submittal would come into City, but minimum 14 days after this meeting before a submittal could be made. Once there is a formal application, look for yellow-sign on site. Q: When the plan is submitted to the City, what is the timeline if it meets all requirements until it is approved? A: (City Planner) From initial submittal, the first round of review is 3 weeks. Staff review meeting with developer is on a Wednesday. Based on the first meeting with the City and Developer we provide comments and plans are revised for additional round(s) of review taking 2 weeks for each round. If it is ready to go to P&Z Hearing then we schedule it. Planning and Zoning Board Hearings occur on the 3 rd Thursday of each month. It takes about a month after we decide it is ready to go to P&Z. Typically there is about 4 months from submittal to Planning and Zoning Board hearing however it can vary depending on the submittal. Neighbors can e-mail or send written comments to me and I will submit with my staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board. Those written comments establish you as a party of interest in terms of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision. All comments you submit to me will be forwarded on to applicant. It sounds like the applicant would be happy to meet with neighborhood again, on a one-on-one format, possibly with a small group of neighborhood spokespeople. A: (developer) Everyone loses when a neighborhood decides to dig in and try and kill a project (The Grove). If you can, find a spokesman and get behind that person and show, as a neighborhood, what you want to see. C: (City Planner) Part of reason meetings take place before plans are finalized/submitted is so there is a greater opportunity for changes to be made to the plans prior to the developer investing a lot of resources into drawing the plans. Having the meeting early is a great opportunity for the developer to incorporate what he hears tonight into the plans in some fashion. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 12 | P a g e A: (developer) I am trying to be realistic. Three-story buildings are a very important component of project for feasibility. Q: If project goes ahead, what is the range of starting construction to opening? A: (developer) Around 8 – 10 months. 1 1 Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 March Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Courtney Levingston, City Planner 2 Site Location • 1.48 acre site • Located in Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N- C-B) • Located in Transit Oriented Development Overlay District • West Central Neighborhood Plan Area . S. Shields St. Springfield Dr. N 2 3 Proposed Project • 57 Units / 97 bedrooms – 29 1-bedroom units – 16 2-bedroom units – 12 3-bedroom units • Density = 38.5 dwelling units/acre • 58 vehicle parking spaces /103 bike parking spaces 4 Proposed Project • 5 three story buildings • “white” buildings – 10,580 sq. ft. 10 units/bldg. • “green” buildings – 11,080 sq. ft. 13, 14 units/bldg. 3 5 Carriage House Apts. & Parking • No minimum parking requirement in the TOD. • 58 vehicle parking spaces provided by project. • Project meets the Code’s parking standard. 6 Multi-modal Connectivity • Served by Transfort Route 3 and Route 19 • Bike lanes existing on South Shields Street. + 4 7 Architectural Elevation – White Building • Materials: – Lap siding – Brick – Stone • Height: 3 stories/ 40 feet 8 Architectural Elevation – Green Building 5 9 Renderings - Looking South Springfield Dr. 10 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035. ATTACHMENT 4 Applicant Presentation at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 1 A 57 home 97 bed community Located at 1199 W. Springfield Street Over 26 years in multi-housing business Completed over 1,000 attached homes Property/Asset Manager of over 100 separate apartment home communities = 10,000 individual homes Based in Longmont Dedicated & focused on multi-housing business 2 3  Initial introductory meeting Aug 11, 2011 • Conducted voluntarily • Open dialogue to engage input • No plans were yet prepared • Feedback was solicited and notes were taken • Concerned about the single large MF bldg.  Formal Neighborhood Mtg October 29, 2013 • Site plan was re-designed to blend into the neighborhood • Changes made to the location of trash receptacle • Requested the appointment of a spokesperson  Separately met with adjacent neighbors at 1201 W. Springfield and 1326 S. Shields 4  Building massing • re-designed to 5 separate buildings  Parking • providing maximum possible parking on site • no minimum parking requirement  Visiblity of Trash Enclosure • relocated, buffering, screening  Management • professionally managed • no tolerance policy • first offense police call results in eviction 5 6 7 8 9 10 Staff report finds compliance with • NCB (LUC 4.9)  as modified by TOD • General Development Standards (LUC 3.0) No variances, modifications or alternative compliance requested 11 Multi-family = permitted use in NCB Allowed density • 64,828 SF (1:1 FAR)  39,281 provided; approx. 60% of the allowed square footage • Max .33 FAR on rear 50% of lot = 10,433 SF  10,272 provided • Greater than 24 du/acre subject to Type 2 (P&Z) review  1.45 acres/57 units = 39.3 du/acre Building Height allowed in NCB: 3 stories • Height Provided: 3 stories Building Height allowed (in feet): 40 feet • Height provided: less than 40 feet Can exceed 40 feet with Height Review • Project is less than 40 feet – no Height Review needed 12 Required Parking: None per TOD Standards • Parking spaces provided: 58 Bike Parking Required: 97 • Bike parking spaces provided: 103  59 interior; 44 exterior Served by Transfort Route 19 Bus stop located 20 feet east of Building 4 Consistent with other multi-family within TOD • Staff report, p. 7 Market-based parking ratio • 1 space per unit 13 Policy EH 4.1 – target in-fill areas Policy LIV 5.1 – higher density in locations on transit lines Policy LIV 6.1 – expand in under utilized parcels surrounded by existing res. dev. Policy LIV 7.2 – develop adequate supply of housing Policy LIV 7.4 – maximize land for res. dev Policy LIV 7.7 – accommodate student population Policy LIV 10.1 – incorporate street trees Policy LIV 22.1 – vary housing types Policy LIV 22.2 - creativity Policy LIV 43.3 – support transit supportive development patterns Policy T3.4 – travel mgmt. demand Figure P-4 – pedestrian priority areas 14 Map 2 shows subject property as redevelopment area Map 3 depicts subject property in NCB Map 3 depicts rental property area Policy F7 endorses higher density HO 4 encourages MF development Future Housing Needs (B) encourages small scale apt buildings Housing Design B prefers 3 stories Existing predominant uses not ideal Redevelopment areas targeted for conversion to more efficient uses (single family to multi-family) to serve as buffer between single family and CSU 15 16 NCB redevelopment area -WCNP Conformance to City’s Land Use Code Residential development in Transit Oriented District SHAP – a new supply of new housing alleviates 1,500 bed per annum shortage High quality housing in a desirable in-fill location Substantial benefit to Community Not detrimental to Community 17  Carriage House is exactly what is envisioned by • City Plan  Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area • West Neighborhoods Area Plan  Redevelopment Area • LUC  Chapter 4.9 – N-C-B  TOD Overlay • Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP)  Complies with all Requirements  No variances, modifications or alternative compliance  Request approval 18 High quality housing community Professionally managed community  Locating student housing in appropriate area Pedestrian oriented site – Lory, Rec Center, Transfort bus station, Old Town, etc. Total Fees paid to City or Agencies = $650,000+/- Total Project Cost = $9 million Current taxable value = $500,000 +/- Proposed taxable value = $9 million + 19 3 stories; < 40’ 5 separate buildings • 2 different Lot area (including 1319 S. Shields) = 64,828 sf Floor area max. per NCB zoning = 64,828 sf • Floor area proposed = 39,281 57 homes proposed = 97 beds 58 parking spaces located in the back of the site 20 ATTACHMENT 5 Materials submitted by Citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 ATTACHMENT 6 Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 1 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, March 21, 2013 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., March 21, 2013 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner Emily Heinz Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Gerald Hart Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations Gino Campana 2 1 CHAIR ANDY SMITH: Our next item for discussion is the Carriage House Apartments 2 PDP…and…Angelina, any written comments received on this item since our worksession? 3 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Chair Smith, since our worksession, we received a letter 4 from Chuck Bailey, dated February 24th, with attachments, email from Eric Stembacken, Lewis 5 Wangarner, Hale Cochran, Barbara Fisher, and Kay Goeglein, and I think that’s it. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay thank you. Now, we’ll take a staff report. Please, Courtney, if you 7 don’t mind. 8 COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: Yes, Mr. Chair. My name is Courtney Levingston, I’m a City 9 Planner, and I’m the assigned project planner for the Carriage House Apartments Project Development 10 Plan. This is a request to demolish two single-family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street, and 11 in their place construct five three-story multi-family buildings combining two lots for a 1.48 acre site. 12 The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District and is within the Transit 13 Oriented Development Overlay District, and within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area. The 14 project proposes fifty-seven units to be divided among one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, for a 15 total of ninety-seven bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with fifty-eight spaces gaining access off of 16 Springfield Drive. As proposed, the project would have five three-story buildings. There are three white 17 buildings proposed which have ten units each and are about 10,600 square feet in size. There are two 18 green buildings proposed that are about 11,100 square feet in size and contain between thirteen and 19 fourteen units. As previously stated, the project is located within the Transit Oriented Development 20 Overlay District. There are no minimum parking requirements in the TOD. The project is providing 21 fifty-eight parking spaces and is meeting the Land Use Code requirement in this respect. This slide 22 illustrates how the project is served by Transfort’s route three and nineteen going directly to CSU Transit 23 Center, with routes serving the larger community there. The project is…also has bicycle connectivity by 24 making bicycling a transportation option for residents of the proposed project. The project meets Land 25 Use Code bicycle connectivity and transit standards. 26 This is the architectural elevation for the three white buildings. The proposed three-story multi- 27 family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible 28 with the surrounding context by its complementary architectural design featuring craftsman architectural 29 detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south 30 and west. Here are the architectural elevations for the green buildings. As you can see, the architectural 31 character borrows from the craftsman bungalow vernacular once again, and the primary building material 32 is horizontal lap siding, and the inclusion of stone and brick at the base. Detailing features such as hip 33 and gable roofs, accented window trim, and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and 34 reinforce compatibility of this project with the surrounding area. This slide illustrates the green and white 35 elevations more contextually with each other, looking south from Springfield Drive. The articulation 36 further breaks up each building’s mass as…actually more like single-family homes, not unlike the 37 Bennett Street Bungalows to the south. In conclusion, multi-family buildings are a permitted use in the 38 NCB zone district and the project development plan complies with the applicable Land Use Code 39 standards. Staff recommends approval of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. 40 That concludes my staff presentation. Thank you. 3 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Any questions of Courtney right now, before we move into the 2 applicant presentation? Alright, please, if the applicant would please step forward and make your 3 presentation. 4 CHUCK BAILEY: Good evening. My name is Chuck Bailey, I’m with Catamount Properties, 5 address 7302 Rozena Drive, Longmont, Colorado. I’m pleased to present Carriage House Apartments, 6 it’s really, I think, maybe I can use slang and you can’t, but I think back to the future. It’s an old style 7 building, we think, but it’s innovative in that it’s a community of buildings rather than just a single 8 building. Lots of towns have fourteen- and ten-plex apartment buildings for sure, similar to this 9 maybe…but, this is a whole community, and that’s where we think it’s innovative. Commonly, what 10 you’re seeing, I’m sure, is a twenty-four plex, large apartment buildings, and this concept also conforms 11 to the new Land Use Code, in that we have two different plans on this five building site plan. The 12 home…what we’re presenting tonight…we’re presenting a plan that seeks no variances, it meets all the 13 City requirements and it’s fifty-seven units, and ninety-seven residences…it accommodates ninety-seven 14 residents. Presently the site accommodates six residences, the one and a half acre site. It’s about two 15 hundred yards from the southwest corner of the CSU campus, and it’s a high-end student housing 16 community. So, it’s…we think there’s only presently two hundred and fifty beds in this genre, and if we 17 add ninety-seven more, we get to three hundred and forty-seven. That’s about 1.3% of the off-campus 18 student market, so you’re seeing a lot of new student communities come into this city, but you’re really 19 not seeing a lot in this genre, and we think it adds to the overall appeal of the CSU situation for the 20 incoming students. 21 We don’t lease by the bed, they’re joint…leases, so you get parental guarantees, and we don’t 22 provide furniture. We’ll have thirty one-bedroom homes in this community, which is another interesting 23 thing that differentiates this community. And, we found that you get more serious students and more 24 graduate students in a one-bedroom type home. You certainly have less types of disturbances because the 25 units are very small…so it’s a nice fit being right across from campus and having that kind of a clientele. 26 My company, Catamount, I’ve been in the multi-housing business for twenty-six years. All I do 27 is multi-family development and management, and we were here in front of you a couple years ago and 28 developed the Pura Vida Place community at 518 West Laurel Street, which was completed last July…it, 29 too, being across the street from the Business School and the campus. Go ahead, Todd, one more. Sorry, 30 one more. 31 So this is an overview, Courtney did some of this, but again, you can see the proximity to 32 Ingersoll there in the upper right hand corner, and Shields Street being the yellow line running north 33 south, and it’s a corner site with about three hundred and thirty feet of frontage along Springfield, and 34 about a hundred and fifty feet of Shields Street frontage. It’s…Shields Street generates about sixteen 35 thousand cars per day. The overlay plan here will show you what we’re contemplating here, and there’s 36 the three yellow buildings are existing. There’s a 1950’s ranch style home at 1319 South Shields there in 37 the lower right hand corner of the site. And then 1305 Shields is the smaller residence there in the 38 northeast corner of the site, the upper right hand corner, and then there’s an old chicken coop that’s been 39 converted to a rental in the back northwest left corner. You can see the access point off Shields to the 40 1319 home, and that access will go away, obviously, and both the other two access points on Springfield 41 go away and the egress point will be at the far left side of the site. You see a lot of greenery; you see a lot 4 1 of trees. We’re going to retain the fourteen crabapple trees that run along the perimeter of Springfield 2 Drive, which…you know, we’re excited about bringing that sort of ambiance to a new community. And 3 all of the parking is in to the rear. Here’s just an aerial view of the same description. 4 So, how this all evolved was, we had a neighborhood outreach meeting about a year and three- 5 quarters, you know, a year and nine months ago, in August of 2011, and this was a preliminary meeting 6 where we brought no plans in, we invited all the neighbors to come in and try to gain feedback, and we 7 kept notes and heard lots of different things said to and about us, but at any rate, what we heard largely 8 was the neighbors were really…really concerned about another large-scale multi-housing building, maybe 9 not unlike Pura Vida or some of the others that are commonly built. And, so that was heard loud and 10 clear and became a major component into the site plan that we showed you. We subsequently had…well, 11 a year went by and we were involved in historic…a historic issue that was ultimately concluded last fall, 12 so that date is wrong. We ultimately had our formal neighborhood meeting in October of 2012, I’m sorry 13 about that, not 2013…it hasn’t happened yet. Back to the future, right? So, at any rate, we heard more 14 from the neighbors and we gained some additional insight into our site plan, and I was, you know, really 15 looking forward to seeking a spokesperson from the neighborhood, and Sarah was hired recently with the 16 City, and so she assumed some of that role, and we went forward from that point. Separately, I’ve met 17 with several of the neighbors that immediately abut the site, and I’ll get into more about that in a couple 18 more slides. 19 So, the concerns that really emanated from the meetings were building massing, and as you can 20 see, we’ve really heard that loud and clear and we’ve designed five separate buildings rather than the 21 single large building that’s so commonly done. And, certainly it’s more expensive, but the five separate 22 buildings give us greater green space, give us more windows, and it gives us that style that Courtney 23 described as being, you know, we think more in harmony and compatible with the neighborhood. 24 Parking, you know parking is always a big one, right? And, we’re in the TOD so we don’t have a 25 minimum parking requirement, but we…you know, we listened, and we underbuilt the site in order to 26 provide as much on-site reserved parking as possible, and as Courtney mentioned, we have fifty-eight 27 spaces on site. And I’ll show you some slides about parking in a moment. And then the trash enclosure, 28 that…you know, that’s always a sore spot, a necessary evil, and we’ve relocated and buffered and 29 screened that trash enclosure to the greatest extent possible. And, management’s a big one, you know, 30 everybody’s concerned about how this is going to be managed and what kind of intrusions that creates 31 into the neighborhood and I’ll speak to that. 32 So, here’s an exploded view of the site plan and the surrounding neighborhood. In the northeast 33 corner is a professional building called University Park Professional building, and that’s a medical 34 building, it’s two stories and it’s about thirty-five feet in elevation. And then immediately to the north of 35 the subject property…the same seller also owns that home, and it’s 1301 South Shields. It’s a two level 36 home that’s approximately twenty-eight feet in height. And then you see all of the five buildings that 37 comprise our site plan, and they’re generally thirty-eight to, you know, forty feet in height. So, nothing 38 exceeds the forty foot threshold for height. There are two homes on South Shields there, 1321, that 39 are…that have boarding licenses and there’s a detention pond that’s about a hundred and forty feet by a 40 hundred and forty feet square on the south boundary, so that creates some great spacing along the south 41 property line. And then there are two homes on Bennett Street that immediately abut the southwest 42 corner of the site, and then there’s a home on the far western edge, 1201 West Springfield. I have made 5 1 contact with the boarding home owners and talked to that family about their concerns and issues. I have 2 attempted to speak with the 1202 Bennett Street, the most adjacent homeowner, to no avail, and that home 3 recently sold in the last two weeks and there’s a new owner that’s taken possession of that property. The 4 1201 owner…I have met with that owner and, while she didn’t endorse the project by any means, I talked 5 to her at length about the egress points there at the far west side of the site, and thinking that she was most 6 affected by that, and it was her opinion that having the separation of eighty-eight feet from that building 7 one that you can see, to her house, was more…was a better plan than having that building be closer and 8 moving that entrance at some other point in the site plan. The other separation to the Bennett Street home 9 is a hundred and eight feet, almost a hundred and nine feet, you can see there, so we think we’ve created 10 some pretty good separation from the single-family homes. And…actually back up a slide, Todd. Hit the 11 backspace. The finished floor elevations are also depicted in this slide, and you can see that our finished 12 floor elevation for our building one there at the far westernmost point is thirty-two and a half feet, 13 approximately, and the Bennett Street homes, they’ve been bermed up for reasons, probably to create 14 basements, but their finished floor elevation is thirty-nine feet, so that’s seven feet higher on the main 15 level than our main level. And the Springfield home, the finished floor elevation is approximately thirty- 16 five feet, so we’re going to be lower on our first level and we’re certainly…the Bennett Street home 17 is…has been bermed up, and there’s a picture showing the four or five feet of berming that occurred on 18 the Bennett Street development, which I know was quite controversial, you know, when it occurred. 19 So, this is a comparison of the parking for the…for the development, and you can see…Courtney 20 presented some of the same…largely the same information. I added another comp, the Atrium Suites at 21 the bottom, but the presentation that Courtney made, most of these TOD developments have about one 22 space per unit, and I kind of took it another step to say, well, how about spaces per bedroom, because 23 that’s really sort of the acid test. We have more one bedrooms than maybe another community, so, 24 evaluating it on a per unit basis maybe isn’t the most objective way to look at it. So, looking at it on 25 space per bedroom, you can see that we actually have more spaces than certainly the Pura Vida comp that 26 I built, and the Flats at the Oval, and the others. So, that’s I think demonstrating our desire to really park 27 this thing off-site. 28 Heights, building massing, you know, was another thing we heard, and kitty-corner to the site is 29 the professional building, and in my letter that’s on file, I calculated that the building was thirty-eight feet, 30 and I had to do some voodoo math to arrive at that by counting siding and, so I found the architect in 31 between producing the letter, and he had his plans and he’s still in business, and he confirmed that the 32 building ridge is thirty-five feet. So, that’s a correction to my letter, but it’s not a three-story building of 33 course, but it’s a very large two-story building and it’s been there for thirty-one years. Adjacency from 34 multi-family to single-family in the community…I think you can see a couple examples here, the 35 Miramont, which is at 4900 South Boardwalk…it’s a twenty-four plex building and it’s less than ninety 36 feet from those adjacent single-family homes. So, you recall that we were eighty-eight to a hundred and 37 ten feet in our example of our site plan, and you can also see that the elevation of this building is 38 higher…it’s about mid-level to the single-family home elevation to the far right there. Another newer 39 example is the Terra Vida apartments over near Fossil Ridge High School, and these buildings are 40 approximately a hundred feet from these single-family homes in Observatory Village. These homes are 41 being built and sold, and, you know, it’s very desirable new home community in the city. And, these are, 42 again, twenty-four plex apartment buildings. 6 1 So, one of the things, with respect to management, you know, that came out of our interaction and 2 our neighborhood meetings, was the concern about management and how we’re going to handle 3 management. And these are just still slides from a web-based program, and AV program that we use, that 4 we require all of our students, our residents, and all of our…and their parents, to actually watch a, sort of 5 a…how to live in an apartment video. And, it’s quite educational. Teaches them how to maintain their 6 home, how to use…what to do when they have clogged up sinks even, and some of the lease components 7 are in that presentation so they understand that their rent’s due and what happens, you know, if they’re 8 delinquent. And a big part of this presentation is how to be a good citizen. And, so we present this, and 9 you know, again, this is a still slide, it has a narrative in it, and it also has a questionnaire, so when the 10 student is done, and the parents, they all have to do a small test to prove that they watched it. And, we’ve 11 really had some good success with this. And, basically what this says is that, if the cops come, you’re 12 going to get evicted, and your parents are guaranteeing your lease. And, it’s…you know, there’s a loud 13 noise slide there, and there’s a description of, you know, what’s not tolerated. There’s a, you know, you 14 can’t drink…and, now, believe it or not, we’re even adding a marijuana segment to it to say that you can’t 15 do this stuff in public. 16 So, here’s our site plan, in more detail. And, again, you can see the fourteen crabapples that are 17 along Springfield there in the circles, and we’re saving those trees, we’re even tunneling under the pair in 18 the upper right hand corner to preserve those trees…and, there’s a classic evergreen tree in the northeast 19 corner, there’s another fine tree in the southeast corner, and there’s a protective tree, you can see at the 20 lower south boundary line as well. So, lots of green space, we’ve got entry points from both sides of the 21 building so there’ll be these, you know, real nice front entries with porch lights and small single-family 22 like street lights out in front of each of those sidewalk areas. And, this is…I talked about the trash 23 enclosure and the controversy. We initially presented it where the trash enclosure is in…depicted as trash 24 one there in the upper left, and it migrated to the second spot when the City didn’t like it, out near the 25 street, and then the neighbors that abutted that certainly didn’t like the trash there, and so it’s migrated 26 inwards into the location where it is now. You know, we feel that’s a good solution for everybody. So, 27 with that I’d like to introduce Becky Stone with Oz Architects, and she’s going to talk about the architect 28 part and the, you know, the articulation of our buildings. 29 BECKY STONE: Hi, my name is Becky Stone, I’m with Oz Architecture, my address is 3795 30 South Jersey Street in Denver. We have had so much fun working on this project because we do, at Oz, a 31 lot of housing, but not where we get to scale it to the human scale where people actually would walk 32 down the streetscape…I mean obviously we have some of that, but we do a lot of urban, big housing, and 33 so this is so fun to be able to break it up and actually have four-sided architecture with student housing, 34 and so I wanted to talk a little bit about that streetscape. So, one of the bases for the design was to get a 35 front porch kind of community, so that when you walk down Springfield, and there is a walkway…and, 36 typically on the site plan, which we can go back to in a minute, but there’s a…there’s one sidewalk up 37 and then there’re front porches, which really makes it inviting, and sort of a warm, welcoming 38 community. And, again, it’s four-sided architecture, and so the backs of the buildings that face the 39 parking lot, that’s an entrance for the students, and so it was really important that the front side that faces 40 Springfield and Shields, and also the back side, are both inviting and welcoming kind of design. And, the 41 sort of craftsman style of architecture, that it’s designed as sort of a bigger house instead of a great big 42 building on this site, I think was just a fun, really good opportunity. Let’s go to the next one, maybe. 7 1 So, in terms of the architecture, and on the streetscape it was important that we varied the models 2 of the house too, so again, going after that sort of craftsman bungalow style that’s in keeping with the 3 community and some of the materials that come from CSU and the local community. So, this one, the 4 green elevation we’re calling it, but it has a combination of red brick and horizontal lap siding, and then it 5 accent gables, we used a shingle siding, and the roof forms, the gable and hip roof forms are sort of that 6 traditional massing for the cottage bungalow style. A lot of timber, posts and beams, and timber detailing 7 and brackets to give it a lot more interest and, you know, big…larger window headers. And so, and then 8 the next one…so this is the Springfield elevation of the, what we’re calling the white building. So this 9 one, being a little bit different, it has like two front porch entries, and very similar, but it has a stone base, 10 lap siding and the shingle and the accent gables. And again, a lot of use of timber detailing and brackets 11 and wood trusses and wood railings. So, one of the keys was to sort of ground the base with the stone or 12 the brick so it has that heavier base and gets lighter as you go up. And then at the top level, although it is 13 three stories, and we’ve sort of tucked the…I guess it’s the green one more than the white one, but we’ve 14 sort of tucked the top levels into the roof in some spots. One more…one more after this…maybe we’ll go 15 back to the streetscape one. So, and in terms of setback…so, we have sort of green space in between 16 these buildings and…to maintain a twenty foot buffer in between them with a walk between the parking 17 lot and, there’s some…there’s trees in there and grass, and so it allows windows on all four sides, and 18 people get a lot of light and air in those units, which is really important, and some outdoor space on the 19 decks and patios. So, we do have a setback of thirty-one feet from the Springfield side and at least fifteen 20 feet from all the property lines, and from South Shields. And again, as Chuck mentioned, it was really 21 important to keep the crabapple trees along Springfield because that sort of farm orchard look was just 22 another great opportunity to deal with the craftsman style architecture, and those orchard trees are 23 fantastic. Maybe that’s good. 24 CAROLYN WHITE: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, City 25 staff, and members of the public, my name is Carolyn White, I’m land use counsel for the applicant, and 26 tonight it’s my pleasure to present to you a brief presentation on how this project meets the standards in 27 your Land Use Code. It’s also my extreme pleasure to present to you a project that has no modifications, 28 no variances, and no alternative compliance. Every single component of this project is 100% in 29 compliance with all of the standards in the Land Use Code. So, the first applicable standard obviously is 30 the underlying zone district, which is the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, and I want to just briefly 31 read to you a statement about what the purpose of that district is, because it really describes exactly what 32 this project was designed to be. What that district is supposed to be is…intended for areas that are a 33 transition between residential neighborhood and more intensive commercial use areas or high traffic 34 zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted plan. And so, when you see 35 where this property is located in between the University and the single-family residential, this is exactly 36 what that type of district is envisioning. The other applicable standards, of course, are the general land 37 use standards in Chapter 3, and those are the standards that apply to all development. And, I might 38 mention that both of those standards are as modified by the TOD overlay, which this project is also 39 within. Next slide. 40 So, one of the key things that any project in, under 3.5.1 of the general development standards, 41 has to do, is to be compatible, and there’s a lengthy description in the staff report about how to evaluate 42 compatibility, and we do agree and concur with everything that’s in the staff report in that regard and with 43 respect to all of the other components and requirements of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.9. But, in particular, I 8 1 want to just mention a little bit about compatibility because it…that term encompasses, I think, the 2 majority of the concerns that we’ve heard from the neighborhood. So, in 3.5.1, what it says about 3 compatibility is that new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible 4 with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complimentary. And 5 then there’s also some talk about achieving that compatibility through repetition of roof lines, the use of 6 similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationship to the street, similar window 7 and door patterns, et cetera. And that really summarizes exactly what the architect, Becky Stone, was just 8 talking to you about. In addition, we’ve heard a lot of talk about how, geez, this project is just too dense 9 to be located in this neighborhood. And, so I want to briefly mention density even though it is well 10 within all of the applicable standards related to density. So, one way that you mention density is the 11 FAR, and the allowed FAR on this site is 40% more than what is being used here. So, when Chuck 12 Bailey talked to you about how we really scaled this down, this project could actually be 40% bigger in 13 terms of the developed portion, and it could have significantly less parking and still be well within the 14 applicable standards. And, by scaling it down in this way, it is able to be much more compatible with the 15 surrounding development and to achieve that blend of massing so that these buildings look relatively in 16 size and scale, quite similar to the buildings that are nearby. Another way you look at density is the units 17 per acre, and there is no maximum units per acre within this zone district. The units per acre…the total 18 max density is really managed by all of the performance standards, so by the time you comply with the 19 setbacks and the height and all of the other requirements, what’s left is how much you can build. And so 20 it is well within that. It happens to be about 39.3 dwelling units per acre, which is over the twenty-four, 21 which is why we’re here before you. It could have been proposed as less than twenty-four units per acre, 22 in which case there would have been no public hearing, it would have been an administrative approval. 23 Next slide please. 24 So, again, on the concept of compatibility, there’s been some discussion about height in several of 25 the letters and the record proposed that this project would be just fine if it were only two stories. Three 26 stories is the allowed height within this district, so there is no special height review requested. Forty feet 27 is the maximum height, and it is within that limit, so it is well within the height limits allowed within this 28 zone district. Next…oh, one more comment I want to make on that is just to reiterate what Mr. Bailey 29 presented to you about the height of this project relative to the height of the surrounding buildings. While 30 it is true that there are some single-family homes in the neighborhood and even adjacent, when you look 31 at the actual finished floor area, and when you look at the thirty-five foot high two-story building that’s 32 kitty-corner, they’re actually quite compatible in terms of the overall height. There is not a dramatic 33 difference between the height of this building and the height of the surrounding structures. 34 Then, I want to mention briefly, parking, just reminding that again, the standard here…there 35 could be zero parking spaces here, there could be no parking spaces, and it would still be in compliance 36 with the Code. And, instead, what is being proposed is fifty-eight parking spaces for fifty-seven units, 37 and we talked a little bit about all the different ways you might measure that in terms of per unit or per 38 bedroom, or whatever, but however you measure it, the parking that’s being provided is greatly in excess 39 of what is required, it’s precisely what the market demands, and it is more than adequate to accommodate 40 the uses on this site. Just by comparison, you know, there’s no spaces required, fifty-eight are being 41 provided, ninety-seven bike spaces are required, a hundred and three are being required [sic], fifty-nine of 42 which are going to be covered, interior spaces, and there are, of course, these alternative modes of 43 transportation that are available an serve this site, which is part of the reason why it’s such a great site for 9 1 this particular type of housing product, multi-family student housing right across from the University. 2 Next slide please. Additionally, on the parking, just to mention that it is precisely within the range, in fact 3 provides more parking than the comparable TOD multi-family projects that have recently been approved 4 or that have been constructed under the TOD overlay, and that’s back to the chart that Chuck Bailey 5 showed you a little bit earlier, it has slightly more parking actually. And, we believe this is truly the 6 market-based parking ratio that is appropriate for the market. Next slide. 7 So, that concludes my presentation on the legal criteria, I’m going to turn it back over to Mr. 8 Bailey to talk a little bit about how this project furthers the goals of City Plan and the West Central 9 Neighborhoods Plan, and of course everyone on the team is available to answer any questions that you 10 may have at the conclusion of our presentation. Thank you. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 12 MR. BAILEY: So, wrapping this up, we have…there’s eleven policies in the City Plan that this 13 community…attributes that this community conforms to, from higher density locations on transit lines, 14 develop an adequate supply of housing, LIV 7.2, LIV 7.4, maximize land for residential development, 15 LIV 7.7, accommodate student population, LIV 22.1, vary housing types, 22.2, housing creativity, and 16 then even a figure…pedestrian priority areas, which this is certainly right into the core area of that. The 17 West Central Neighborhood design attributes are many as well, maps showing this property in a 18 redevelopment area, map three shows that in the NCB, map three depicts this in a rental property area. 19 And, the most important one, I think, is that HO number four encourages multi-family development…I’m 20 sorry, the future housing needs encourages small-scale apartment buildings. So, I think we’re really 21 ringing true on that. And then the last one, housing design B prefers three stories. So, it’s a 22 redevelopment area, targeted for conversion, it’s going to create a buffer between the busy Shields Street 23 and the single-family area to the west. 24 A couple of density slides…I asked THK, a noted demographic firm in Denver, to take a look at 25 six or seven different college communities in our region…Lincoln, Laramie, Provo, Utah, Lawrence, 26 Kansas, Boulder and Greeley…and the number of persons per acre in a six block area surrounding CSU, 27 or surrounding any of these college communities, we kept that rigorous, was compared and…you know, 28 CSU’s at the lower realm of that comparison in terms of thirteen and a half persons per acre in that 29 immediate campus area. We looked at it in dwelling units per acre and, again, the same result. Kind of 30 lower quadrant, 5.3 development units per acre…comparable to, you know, Laramie is at 4.6. And then 31 here’s a project density comparison, again a lot of this has been discussed, but I’ll just sum it up 32 by…rather than going as dwelling units per acre, which I again think is…distorts the comparison based 33 on the unit mix. The better comparison is persons per acre, that’s really, you know, what the objective 34 measurement is. And you can see the subject property is sixty-five, Pura Vida was a hundred, Flats at the 35 Oval was a hundred and nineteen, and Atrium was a hundred and seven, and the Capstone choice is now 36 called The Summit, there right behind the Chuck-E-Cheese. The more two-bedrooms you have, the easier 37 it is to push that number up. But, again, I think you can see that we’re not really pushing, you know, any 38 sort of aggressive density on this. But, it’s going to push the needle, you know, from that 5.3 people per 39 acre, certainly, that you know, is the current average. 40 So, in conclusion, it’s a lot of the things we’ve been talking about, it’s the West Central 41 Neighborhood Plan, conformance Land Use Codes, transit oriented location, Student Housing Action 10 1 Plans, looking to accommodate this shortage, and this is going to do just that, in a way, it’ll help that, it 2 certainly won’t accommodate it. High quality housing in a desirable location…it’s a benefit to the 3 community, and it’s certainly not a detriment. I don’t want to repeat a lot of this stuff, but I think the 4 bottom line is that we are not the problem here, we are the solution to the problem, and I ask for your 5 support tonight. Thank you. Oh, and I do have packets of the presentation I’d like to bring up if that’s 6 okay. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 8 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Courtney? Courtney, do you have any comments or clarifications based on 10 what we just heard from the applicant? 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: No, Mr. Chair. 12 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. At this point, does any member of the Board have a question they want 13 to just ask quickly before we move on to the next part of the hearing? Okay, okay, very good. Then what 14 we’ll do now is we’ll move to the public testimony. And, before I even start that, I just want to make sure 15 that a couple of the house rules are followed, and that is that we would keep it very civil and that we 16 would not cheer, jeer, or anything of the sort, please, conduct ourselves with some civility. What we’ll 17 do, is let me get a quick show of hands of how many folks would like to address the Board on this issue. 18 Just two of you? Just joking. Okay, is there a representative of a neighborhood that’s been designated 19 that would need more than what’s allotted, typically, and that would probably be normally for a citizen, 20 three minutes, but would you need more time than that? Okay…are you going to represent the 21 neighborhood? I mean how many folks here would appoint this gentleman as a representative of his 22 neighborhood, I mean…what I would ask is, I would give you more time, if they would defer some of 23 their time. Okay, okay, okay…let’s do this then. 24 JOEL ROVNAK: So, our true leader couldn’t be here tonight because it’s spring break, we’re 25 hoping that he might arrive…so I’m not a very good leader, but…I can’t say that I can speak for… 26 CHAIR SMITH: Do you have a presentation? 27 MR. ROVNAK: I do, yes. 28 CHAIR SMITH: You do? Okay. 29 MR. ROVNAK: We have some slides we’d like to put up and a couple of posters that we would 30 like to put up, if we could just have a few moments for that. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, what I typically do, is…I’m sorry to belabor this, is typically give 32 everybody three minutes, I want to keep this fair, and so…and again, we typically would say that if a 33 neighborhood group is formed and they’ve appointed you to be their representative, they’ve all agreed, 34 and they’ve said, yeah, I’ll defer my time, then we’d allow that, but I’m not sure I get the sense that’s the 35 case tonight and so… 11 1 MR. ROVNAK: I’m not prepared to represent all of the issues that we would like to address, 2 either in three minutes or not…people have, I believe, prepared their own presentations. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, would you have the ability to hand off your presentation to somebody 4 else that would use their three minutes? Because I guess what I want to do is I want to run a fair hearing, 5 and I’m reluctant to allow any person to have more than three minutes. 6 MR. ROVNAK: Then it will be three minutes, thank you. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s do that then. So, everybody will have three minutes, and if there is a 8 presentation that’s going to go a little bit longer, then have somebody come up and maybe continue your 9 thoughts. Again, a show of hands…how many folks? There was approximately fifteen or so. Okay, 10 okay, yeah, definitely…I am going to stick to the three minutes because of that, and here’s what we do, is 11 we have two podiums, two microphones, so I’d ask that you…you kind of line up on either one of those 12 and that you would, when it’s your turn, to state your name and address for the record, sign in as well. 13 You know…here, let me ask you to do this too, with the use of the audio…the props. Could we set them 14 up at a different place? Just…I want the applicant to have the opportunity to see it, and also the audience. 15 Ann, if you can be able to see it too, if it goes over here on camera, that would be good. 16 MR. ROVNAK: Actually, we did not know that we’d be allowed to have PowerPoint, we have 17 them on Power Point if that would be possible. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, yeah, I think that would be preferable. So, why don’t we do this then, 19 why don’t we get some speakers to step up, if it’s alright you can take down those old school props and 20 set up your PowerPoint, and then while you’re setting that up, we’ll have speakers go ahead and we’ll get 21 the ball rolling. Does that work for you? Everybody okay? Alright, alright, let’s go ahead and line 22 up…three minutes, please state your name and address for the record. If you can be very clear about your 23 position on this, whether you are for it or against it, and if those are going to go down, if maybe a friend 24 could take those down, it’d be good. 25 SANDRA QUACKENBUSH: Okay, so do you want to start, are you ready? 26 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, just…I want that to go down if you don’t mind, please. I know…well, 27 we take the whole fair hearing thing pretty serious around here. 28 MS. QUACKENBUSH: That’s fine by me, I don’t have any problem with that. 29 CHAIR SMITH: Please, go ahead, let’s start. 30 MS. QUACKENBUSH: Okay, so, good evening. My name is Sandra Quackenbush, I live at 31 1308 Bennett Road and I’m a professor, teacher, and mentor to many CSU students. I would like to ask 32 the members of the Board a few questions for your consideration. How many people live next door to 33 you personally? Are there four people, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four people? Are there a hundred 34 people living next door to you? Do they have second and third story balconies overlooking your bedroom 35 windows and backyard? And, how many people would you expect to live next door to you if you owned 36 your own single-family home in a residential neighborhood? Now, imagine a parking lot ten feet from 37 your bedroom with a trash dumpster and ninety-seven contributors. Of course if you live next to a 12 1 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone, you might have taken a careful look around at the housing and 2 businesses in that zone, doctors, dentists, lawyers, and twenty-four unit housing. If you look up the rules 3 for the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone, you would see just exactly what we see in our 4 area…uses designed to buffer the residential neighborhoods. There is an extended list of uses that are 5 extraordinary in this buffer zone, such as multi-family housing with more than twenty-four units. Their 6 approval requires a Type II review by a special decision-making Board, the Planning and Zoning 7 Board…not City Planning staff or even a Type I hearing officer. We are here tonight because you are the 8 decision maker. A Type II review in front of this Board reaches beyond the authority of staff or hearing 9 officers in considering all aspects of the project, including the detriment to neighbors. The role of the 10 Board is not to review the work product of Planning staff for accuracy, to do so would destroy the intent 11 of the Type II review, and disparage the authority of the Planning and Zoning Board. You have the 12 authority and the responsibility to serve the needs of all citizens when development conflicts with or 13 serves those needs. We intend to demonstrate negative outcomes of high intensity housing. We realize 14 that this Board and Council do not distinguish student housing from multi-family housing, and the 15 outcomes we describe do not make such a distinction. The negative impacts of the proposed project are 16 the same no matter the demographic. We only ask for your sincere consideration of a project that has, 17 and will continue to alter our neighborhood in a variety of negative ways. We ask for your evaluation of 18 the losses we face from this extraordinary project. And when I say extraordinary, I don’t mean great, I 19 mean without precedent in the NCB zone in our community. We request that the Board impose a 20 mitigation plan that reduces the size of this project by at least 20% to help reduce these negative impacts 21 on our community. Thank you very much for your consideration. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 23 PAMELA BANTHAM: Good evening, my name is Pamela Bantham and I live at 1214 Bennett 24 Road. I’ve lived in Fort Collins for twenty-six years; I graduated from Poudre High School and went to 25 CSU. As mentioned, I live on Bennett Road with my husband and my two-year old son. We live about 26 forty feet from the edge of this proposed development. We were the first family to move into the Bennett 27 Road Bungalows and we’ve lived there for over nine years. During that time, we’ve watched Bennett 28 Road develop into a wonderful neighborhood. It is a diverse neighborhood with young families, retirees, 29 a large number of residents who are directly connected with the University, including students, 30 employees, several professors, and a dean. The neighbors attend social events together and regularly 31 participate in City-sponsored events, such as Neighborhood Night Out. An important element of this 32 neighborhood is the Bennett Elementary School which is right across the street from our house. The 33 proximity to Bennett Elementary School is one of the most appealing elements of the Bennett 34 neighborhood to us, and I look forward to walking my own son across the street when he starts 35 kindergarten. There are a number of things that concern me about this proposed project, including the 36 prospect of having ninety-seven students live right next door. What concerns me most is the position of 37 the balconies. With the students thirty-five feet off the ground, looking down into our backyard, while 38 my son plays in the sandbox, or directly into our windows when we first wake up in the morning. 39 Another concern is the proximity of the apartment complex’s dumpsters, right next to the single-family 40 homes. Our bedroom faces that new proposed spot of the dumpsters, and I guarantee you can hear them 41 from my bedroom window. The thought of waking up in the morning to the sound of the garbage truck 42 emptying the dumpsters or waking up in the middle of the night to the crash of the beer bottles into the 43 dumpsters is truly unsettling. I understand that the job of this Board is to make sure that this project is 13 1 compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the decisions you make tonight about this 2 development will impact not only the neighborhood, including whether is remains a place where parents 3 like me choose to raise their families and send their children to school, but it will also affect how future 4 projects around CSU are evaluated. Projects like this with the maximum density, the minimum parking, 5 setbacks, and landscaping buffers, virtually guarantees that wonderful neighborhoods like Bennett will 6 not continue to exist near CSU. Please take steps tonight to reduce the size and density of this project, 7 and I agree with the 20%. Please increase the setbacks and landscaping, please require a number of 8 parking spots consistent with the number of students we all know will bring cars to campus, and please 9 impose a requirement that limits balconies to the units that are adjacent to the major streets, not to the 10 units that overlook single-family homes and backyards. Thank you. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Please, step up. 12 CLAIR EMELDI: Good evening members of the Planning and Zoning Board, my name is Clair 13 Emeldi and I live in the Avery Park neighborhood. I am against the construction of the Carriage House 14 Apartments in my neighborhood, which is already densely populated. Besides long-time residents, we 15 already have too many students living in Avery Park, and with all the construction going on of student 16 housing in Fort Collins, I had hoped that Fort Collins would be able to reduce the number of students 17 living in this residential neighborhood instead of increasing it. Thank you. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead. 19 GREG DOURAS: Thanks, my name is Greg Douras, I live at 1205 Springfield Drive and I’d like 20 to address parking tonight. Although the TOD District was originally intended to reflect the goal of 21 having tenants within the District to walk or take public transportation to their destinations, we’ve become 22 aware that these are probably more aspirational goals of the TOD than they are accurate representations of 23 what happens. Based on statistics, 80% of students who come to CSU bring their own cars. Building a 24 large scale housing project with parking for only half of those tenants is simply not adequate and will 25 inevitably result in the remainder of the students parking their cars in the surrounding neighborhood 26 streets. I’ve been a resident of Springfield Road for two years and I can tell you firsthand, as I bike to and 27 from work at CSU, that road is parked past my house every day with cars of people coming to school 28 there. Although allowing a high-intensity multi-family housing project on a small lot with inadequate 29 parking will have a tremendously negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, one of the most 30 important duties of this Board is to take into consideration the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood 31 and to take steps to ensure the compatibility of any proposed project with the existing neighborhood. If 32 this Board plans to approve this project, I ask that you impose a mitigation plan which specifically 33 addresses the neighbors’ concerns. One of those concerns should be a requirement that on-site parking 34 spaces are necessary for 80% of the tenants who live in the units; this simply reflects what we know to be 35 a number consistent with the number of cars that come to campus with students. Maybe the changes are 36 made to the TOD District in the near future, but proposing a mitigation plan that requires parking spaces 37 for 80% of the tenants is something this Board can do tonight. This not only addresses the concerns of 38 the neighbors and ensures more compatibility with the existing neighborhood by taking cars off the street, 39 but it also accurately reflects the reality of the parking situation around campus. Please don’t ignore this 40 issue tonight with the assumption that these issues will be addressed on future projects through a change 41 to the TOD District. Please don’t let the Bennett and Springfield neighborhoods become a cautionary tale 14 1 in support of why the TOD District should be changed in the future. If this project is going to be 2 approved, please include a requirement that on-site parking spaces must be included for 80% of the 3 tenants. Thanks. 4 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 5 KARLA CUMMINGS: Good evening, my name is Karla Cummings, I live on Springfield Drive 6 a few doors away from the proposed project site. I’m here to discuss the parking issue. I’ve lived there 7 for twenty-eight years. I’m retired now, but I worked forty years at CSU and walked most of the days 8 since 1985. A lot of my neighbors work at CSU or have retired from CSU. A lot of them are CSU 9 students dispersed in single-family homes, three or more to a house. Lately, in public venues, people 10 have told me that I should have known better than to buy a house next to a University if I didn’t want to 11 live next to students. They suggest that I should move away and abandon my home if I don’t like the new 12 development. I haven’t had a problem up until this year, when an out of town developer came to my 13 town, right into my neighborhood, to make some money on a student housing boom. They build as big as 14 they can get away with to make the most money they can before they sell it off and leave us holding the 15 bag. Now I find myself out here fighting for the integrity, safety and quality of life that I thought the City 16 would project for me. Sorry if I take this a little personally. What I really want to point out is the failure 17 of the Transportation Overlay District. Despite someone’s dream to the contrary, CSU students have and 18 will continue to have their cars for the foreseeable future. They have cars and they will park them 19 somewhere, and that somewhere will likely be on my street. I know this because student commuters 20 already park up to my house almost every day. The project will add another twenty to thirty permanently 21 parked cars to my street that curves on the east end. We have a high car, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic 22 area, not to mention the traffic that the project alone will add. Whoever put the Transportation Overlay 23 District a mile away from the new MAX system clearly hasn’t lived on the west side of campus. It’s a 24 mile to a grocery store with connection by bus. Do any of you go shopping by bus? The students who 25 can afford to live in this new project certainly won’t be doing the bus to grocery shop. Students in 26 Northern Colorado have cars and will continue to have them to go shopping, hiking, skiing, or out at 27 night. That won’t change any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime. I’m asking this Board take 28 responsibility and use your authority to require a reduction in the size of this project…a reduction of one- 29 fifth would allow space for adequate on-site, free parking for each student…each resident. This reduction 30 would also allow real setbacks and landscaping, not just five feet with a couple of bushes. The NCB zone 31 is supposed to conserve neighborhoods. This project is already destroying ours. Thank you for listening. 32 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 33 PAM TREANOR: Good evening, my name is Pam Treanor and I live at 1332 Bennett Road, and 34 I was asked to read a short letter from one of our neighbors who couldn’t attend tonight because she’s at a 35 family birthday. Her name’s Deanne Kelly, she lives at 1313 Springfield…I think for well over thirty 36 years. Her letter says, I would like to state my sincere concern regarding the conceptual plans for the 37 Carriage House Apartments. The Land Use Code does not support three-story buildings being placed 38 right next door to one-story and two-story single-family homes. All of us elderly…I have to join that 39 group…neighbors are devastated by this conceptual plan. At last year’s meeting, Mr. Bailey stated that 40 the building would be professionally managed. At our neighborhood meeting, he stated there would be 41 no on-site management. Parking is a major issue and needs to be professionally addressed as well as the 15 1 trash issue. One other issue is the noise and disturbance problem. Please assist all of us in disallowing a 2 three-story building to be constructed. Thank you for attention to this major issue. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 4 BUELAH KENNICUTT: Good evening, my name is Buelah Kennicutt and I live on Springfield 5 Drive eight houses from the project. I bought my house new forty-seven years ago. I taught at Bennett 6 Elementary and walked to work eighteen years. I’ve been retired for a while now. I’ve seen a lot of 7 changes in the neighborhood, and especially with the students moving into rentals. Most of them have 8 been very good neighbors, although they don’t always take care of things like the homeowners, but that’s 9 to be expected. A few have been a real bother. About ten years ago, they developed…pasture with the 10 bungalow houses. I wasn’t too excited about that, but now I’m really enjoying the neighbors to the back 11 when they’re out in their gardens and taking care of their yards just as I do, and they watch over me. Four 12 years ago, we started the Neighborhood Night in August, and have become a real neighborhood again, 13 until this project. And, since then, we’ve lost six families that have moved away just in my block, and 14 three of those were rentals now…and three of those families took away children from Bennett School. 15 Retired people have bought those houses, but that’s fine, and we’re not quite the same at Bennett School. 16 All the damage that is done, and here they don’t have the project started yet. I’m afraid of what will 17 happen, more will be moving away. I don’t have it in me to move, but still, I remember what my house 18 was when it was new and I’d like to keep it that way. Like I said, most students are good neighbors, but 19 not all of them. Put ninety-seven into one and a half acres, there’s bound to be more problems. And, my 20 neighbors are good to call the police whenever there are these problems, otherwise they’d know who I 21 was. Please consider protecting my neighborhood and making this project smaller. Thank you. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, go ahead please. 23 MELYSSA MEAD: Hi, I’m Melyssa Mead, I live at 1244 Bennett Road, and I also, interestingly, 24 have grown up here, and Michael Baute who spoke earlier about the urban agriculture is my family’s farm 25 who is right on Taft Hill that has gotten developed all around it. But, how great is it that you all approved 26 that for them to continue to do that, which I find a little ironic when we still have some of that right 27 behind our houses. We have a horse pasture by us, we have this undeveloped area that’s right in town, 28 and I’m thinking…I celebrate that. I moved into Bennett almost six years ago, I have two kids that go 29 across the street to Bennett and it’s already nerve-wracking enough with the college student traffic, but 30 you know, we deal with it, and we got a speed bump, and like we’ve said, as a neighborhood we’ve pulled 31 together. Do ninety-seven students that don’t have adequate parking start driving down that street with 32 elementary school children? That obviously is kind of a little bit of a record for disaster, and so I just 33 would warn that, and I think with my kids, and you’re obviously so protective of them, and to have that 34 student development right behind us, that’s not what I moved into. And the reason why I love Fort 35 Collins and why I love that we’re doing things like urban agriculture, is that we respect the land around us 36 and that we’re not going to overdevelop and we’re not going to develop in a way that compromises all 37 these people’s livelihoods and the way we chose to live by living there. Thank you. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 39 ANN HUNT: My name is Ann Hunt and I live at 1800 Wallenberg. Clearly I don’t live in the 40 Bennett neighborhood, but I do live in the neighborhood that’s just south of Prospect Street and east of 16 1 Shields; it’s a neighborhood that’s very impacted by parking by CSU students. And so, I’m here to speak 2 to the real parking problems and not the theoretical parking that is assumed by the TOD. And, the TOD 3 sort of runs right down the middle of Prospect so the people on the north are in the TOD, the people on 4 the south, we still have a requirement for 0.75 spaces per person. And even…we’re worried about that 5 because we have faced the development of many student housing complexes, and none of them have yet 6 been built, but there’s a new proposal, and we feel that they’re not going to have enough parking 7 places…the need for the parking is going to overrun into our neighborhood. I live right kitty-corner from 8 where this development will be, and I know that the students will park there, because they can just walk, 9 if they can’t park in the lot that’s being developed for those students. And I think that if you live in these 10 kind of neighborhoods close to CSU and where students are, you know that these things are going to 11 happen. It’s not theoretical, it’s real, and those are things that have happened and will happen, and so I 12 really am sympathetic with the problems that these people face, compounded by the fact that there’s an 13 elementary school across the street. So thank you very much. 14 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 15 DEBBIE COOK: Good evening, my name is Debbie Cook and I live at 5983 Starview Drive in 16 Broomfield. I own the houses just south on Shields of the proposed development at 1321 and 1325 South 17 Shields. These two houses are single-family residences that have been upgraded to allow four or five 18 unrelated tenants. And, in doing so, I had to provide four extra parking, on-site. And I did so, I created 19 more parking than was necessary to make sure that my tenants and their visitors didn’t park on the 20 street…as much as, I mean when they have parties, then what can you do? But, for the most part, all my 21 tenants park on my property. The southeastern most building is fifteen feet from my property line, in 22 places it may be thirty feet from my house. A three-story building will tower over this ranch. It’s a short 23 ranch, and a three-story building will seem like a monster next to it. The proposed six foot fence will 24 provide no privacy from a thirty-eight foot tall building, and the third story balconies will…will take 25 away any privacy that any of the neighboring houses have. The same berm and tree buffer that was 26 offered along the west side should also be installed along the south border of this proposed property. A 27 fifty-seven unit apartment could legally house three people per unit, or in this case, a hundred and 28 seventy-one tenants. Having fifty-eight parking spaces for between ninety-seven and a hundred and 29 seventy-one tenants, plus their visitors, will create a parking nightmare. Now, Mr. Bailey can claim that 30 he’s going to hire a property manager that won’t allow more than one person per bedroom, but kids break 31 the rules, and when he decides to sell the building, who knows if the next property manager is going to 32 follow that same policy if it is a policy that Mr. Bailey imposes. So, there could legally be a hundred and 33 seventy-one tenants in that building. The City doesn’t monitor that, and they wouldn’t monitor it until 34 there was more than three unrelated tenants in an apartment building. I called Neighborhood Services this 35 morning, and they confirmed that. So, I’m a landlord and I’m student friendly because I mostly rent to 36 students, but I’m only a proponent of this development if it’s done in harmony with the neighborhood. 37 Thank you for your time. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 39 BETH KRANSKE: Hello, my name is Beth Kranske and I live at 1208 Bennett Road. I’ve lived 40 in Fort Collins since 1990, I grew up here and went to Fort Collins High School, I currently coach at the 41 high school, so I consider myself pretty involved in our community. The proposal is directly behind my 17 1 house. I’m not sure if you noticed, by my house is the second one in on the picture, it was labeled 2 incorrectly on the first slide, but it’s the second one. So, I’ll be one of the people who is affected the most 3 by this. You’ve heard all these people stand up and tell you how great our community is, and I couldn’t 4 agree with them more. But, one of the things that makes our community so special is Bennett Elementary 5 School. But, with that, it also prevents challenges in regards to safety. Twice a day in front of Bennett 6 School is packed with cars, both sides of the street, picking up and dropping off their children. Large 7 groups of parents and kids stand on the sidewalk and chat, taking up every space on the sidewalk and 8 every available parking space. One of the things that concerns me the most about this proposed 9 development is, there aren’t enough parking spots for all the residents that we know will be bringing cars 10 to campus. We know that cars that aren’t parked on-site in a development like this will be pushed into the 11 surrounding neighborhoods, including right in front of Bennett Elementary School…which, these parking 12 spots are already being used to maximum every single day when…that school in in session. In my 13 opinion, the parking for this proposed development will not only negatively impact the surrounding 14 neighborhoods, but will directly affect the safety of the children being picked up and dropped off from 15 school. If you read the newspaper, I don’t know if any of you have young kids that you take to 16 elementary school every day, but it’s crowded. And, if you read the newspaper, you hear about so-and-so 17 getting hit by a car next to a school. So, in an area that we know is already full of cars, why would 18 we…it’s our job as the community to look out for these kids and to protect them and not create problems 19 that we already foresee coming. I understand the importance of student housing; more than most, I’m 20 aware of some of the challenges that come along with that. Multiple times, myself of members of my 21 family, have lived in our house have drunk students attempted to break in, and unfortunately successfully 22 broken in to our house. And, it’s…many times, the police were required. So, I understand that. But, I 23 understand that it’s also important to have student housing. So, I’m not opposed to student housing; 24 however, this project appears to have done everything possible to maximize the density and to minimize 25 the parking, landscaping, setbacks, and scale of the project. To me, this is the opposite of compatibility. 26 I’m also concerned about students hanging on their third story balconies. It’s kind of been inferred that 27 the surrounding houses are multi-story, but my house, as you can see…it’s the left one on the top 28 slide…is a one-story house, and my property is adjacent to where this structure is proposed to be built. 29 Please take our concerns into consideration, please reduce the size of the project by 20%, please require 30 parking for at least 80% of the resident that will live there, please increase the setbacks between my house 31 and the development, please increase the height of the fence and require additional evergreen landscaping 32 to shield or buffer the project from the surrounding neighborhoods. Above all, please don’t approve a 33 project that is so incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods that neighborhoods like Bennett and 34 Springfield cease to exist in our city. Thank you. 35 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, you ready to go? Okay, okay. Mam, please go ahead. 36 BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: My name is Brigitte Schmidt, I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I was 37 on the Planning and Zoning Board the first time this project and the following one came before us. So, I 38 do have…and as you guys well know, do have a lot of concerns about neighborhood compatibility. I 39 think it is a lot more than just the architecture. I think City Plan has policies there to preserve our 40 neighborhoods and I think it’s very important to think of lifestyle conflicts. And those can be addressed, 41 I’m not saying that they can’t, but I think it’s…because compatibility is such…if you want to call it…an 42 iffy topic, I think it’s really the purview of the Board to try to decide because you’re not going to get 43 everyone to agree on what is compatible and what isn’t. It’s unfortunate that having no modifications or 18 1 variances is considered a good thing; I tend to consider it as a lack of creativity myself, and I think that 2 possibly I have some questions on this project in areas that they may not have addressed. For one thing, 3 is the parking lot behind an apartment complex considered public parking, a public area. So, you know, 4 when they say you’re not allowed to have marijuana in public, but if you’re having it in the parking lot 5 behind your house, is that a public or private area? Who notifies the management of police violations? I 6 don’t know if the police do, or if you’re in an apartment and you’re ticketed for a noise violation, how 7 does the management find out? They say that that means you’re going to be evicted, but maybe they’re 8 not even notified, so that’s kind of moot. Is it possible to have a pedestrian cross-over on Shields? I 9 really feel a lot of the students are going to take bicycles and walk, and the most direct place is to go 10 down Pitkin. If you take a car, you’re going to go Lake or maybe Elizabeth, but if you’re on foot or on 11 bicycle, you’re going to just wiggle-waggle your way across Shields. And, I read in the staff report that 12 they felt it was too close, but on the north side from Laurel, there’s that church area and it has a pedestrian 13 crossing, and it’s relatively close. So, I really am concerned about people crossing on Shields and the 14 impact on that. One of the things I think is possibly…a lot of people have talked about parking. Is there 15 a way that there could be parking agreements made with, let’s say, Cambridge House, to have a trade-off. 16 Cambridge House has a lot of empty parking spaces, so if students want just a long-term car, could there 17 be a lease agreement made there, or something in the lease requiring people to get parking stickers that let 18 them park at Moby. Those kinds of creative thinking, I think, could really make this project a lot better, 19 and so I’d say it’s not ready yet, although it’s…whenever it’s presented to you, it’s like this is the best, 20 we’ve done a lot of work on this…and I want you to think of the project that follows this, and what is 21 being presented tonight compared to what they presented before, and I think they’ve done an excellent job 22 of reworking their project and making it much more compatible to the neighborhood. And, I suggest that 23 maybe this project could use a little more work too. Thank you very much. 24 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, you ready? 25 MR. ROVNAK: I believe so. Good evening, my name is Joel Rovnak, I live on Bennett Road. 26 I’ve submitted copies of Table 2 and two attachments from the traffic study for this project that you have 27 in your packet. Also, copies of a report by Spack Consulting, documents from a Student Housing Action 28 Plan meeting, and a letter from a representative of Traffic Operations. On attachment A, under other 29 traffic studies, the Traffic Engineer was not aware of any. Another person crossed that out and identified 30 a Bennett Road Bungalows study and an area requiring special study. They wrote, discussion of traffic 31 from project on Bennett Elementary drop-off, pick-up traffic. The same pen crossed out all of the 32 responses in both boxes, were other traffic studies included in the evaluation of this project. On the 33 second attachment, trip generation, a factor of 2.82 per dwelling unit was applied to yield 282 trips for a 34 hundred beds. This was then reduced by 25% to 212 for alternative modes of transport. The trip 35 generation factor 2.82 is based on a study by Spack Consulting of six student housing projects next to the 36 University of Minnesota in downtown Minneapolis. The Minneapolis metropolitan area has 3.3 million 37 people, the University of Minnesota has a downtown campus of 49,000. This is the data from the Spack 38 report where the 2.82 factor was derived. These data were presented to attendees of a SHAP meeting. 39 Have a look at the values used on the attachment, 282, compared to those in the SHAP handout in page 40 three of the Spack report, 2.82 per dwelling unit. I’ve heard many rulings from this Board and from 41 Council that student housing is indistinguishable from multi-family housing, yet trip generation data for 42 student housing were used for this project. Also note the value of 6.65 average rate published for 43 apartments code 220, in the industry reference trip generation provided to SHAP attendees. Table 2 19 1 shows the final correction for ninety-seven student housing beds and the 25% reduction. Also note that 2 the source code is 220 apartments from the trip generation reference. In Fort Collins, all housing is multi- 3 family housing code 220 apartment. This study defines this project as student housing and uses 4 advantageous trip generation data and then reduces it by another 25%. Aside from a three-fold increase in 5 traffic, trip generation determines offset fees that are applied to all transportation needs city-wide. The 6 traffic impact study used for this project is flawed because it fails to account for other traffic in the area 7 and is based upon an incorrect standard. I ask that the Board deny approval of the project tonight and 8 send it back to the staff for review. Thanks. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 10 NANCY PIPER: Yes, I’m Nancy Piper, I live at 2424 Newport Court and I own a property at 11 1118 City Park. I would just point out that…two things, that in that area they pointed out that across the 12 street from this complex is a medical building that’s two-story high. Nothing else around there on the 13 other side…on the west side of Shields in that immediate neighborhood…they are older homes, they are 14 all very, very small one-story homes, so this three-story apartment is something that is really going to 15 tower over those small homes and I would like to see that readdressed to have a smaller area. And, a 16 major concern with this property is, as everyone has said, is the parking. If you drive down Shields 17 toward campus, Bennett Street, all the streets along there…Springfield…they are all, on a college day, 18 they are packed. You could not find a place for a bicycle. And, yet we’re talking about brining basically 19 at least ninety-seven more cars into that with only fifty-seven parking spots. Where are those other cars 20 going to go? Because we all know those cars are going to be there, and there is no place for blocks in 21 either direction on the west side of Shields to park anything. So, I would really like that to be readdressed 22 and considered. Thank you. 23 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 24 DONNA FAIRBANK: My name is Donna Fairbank. I live at 1712 Clearview Court, which is 25 next to Avery Park. I’ve lived there for thirty-seven years. My son and his family live in the same area 26 so we’re involved, depending on the weather, in either transporting our grandchildren by bike or by car to 27 Bennett School. I know this neighborhood well; you’ve seen my face here before. I lent a lot of time to 28 quality of life issue in Fort Collins. By all rights I should be at a family reunion in Estes Park, but we 29 brought it home Wednesday because this is important. I’m not going to reiterate the issues, you’ve heard 30 them. What I want to ask you to do is imagine that you live where we live, and ask you to do what feels 31 right in your heart to protect our quality of life. I’d like to retire and work in a flower garden, instead I 32 put on my calendar where the meetings are and who the meetings are with, to try and find balance in 33 encouraging student housing. My husband is a professor at CSU, we like the students; we want them to 34 have a good quality of life too. But, our neighborhood is under a tremendous amount of pressure and 35 people are already selling because of the fear that we’re not going to be protected from these projects. 36 Please think about what is going to happen as more and more pressure is put on. We hear too many 37 people speaking to us as though we should have known better than to buy on the west side. The west side 38 is defensible as a student area, but it’s equally defensible as a faculty area. It doesn’t have to do so much 39 with who is living there with whether or not they’re required to behave themselves and have compatible 40 housing. So, think about the issues of parking and of behavior and of numbers as you make your 41 decisions tonight. We really need your help, thank you. 20 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir and mam, please. 2 MIKE SMITH: Good evening, my name is Mike Smith, I live at 2320 Chandler Street. I actually 3 used to rent a home on Bennett Road. It was a great neighborhood and the families there embraced me, 4 welcomed me. And you know, I was a graduate student here at CSU and I know how student parking is 5 and I know how students can be. Living on Bennett Street on any given weekend, you just didn’t know 6 how many cars you were going to have in front of your street. It was sometimes difficult when you come 7 home and the cars lined up in front of your street made it difficult to actually get into the driveway. So, 8 you know, I’m…I know how parking is and I know how the student population is. So, please, when you 9 make a decision, you know, please think about the parking. And, you know, since I don’t live there 10 anymore, I still think you need to think about the residents that do live there and how the parking is going 11 to affect how they live and, you know, how the residents are going to look over into the backyards of 12 those homes so, you know, I appreciate your time and so does she… 13 CHAIR SMITH: She has three minutes too. Thank you. Sir please go ahead when you’re ready. 14 PETE KRANSKE: Thank you. My name is Pete Kranske and I live at 4131 Harborwalk Drive, 15 but my wife Patty and I own the property at 1208 Bennett where our daughter, Beth, lives. And, you 16 already heard from our daughter Beth and probably by the time we’re done, you’ll see somebody else 17 besides Pete taught her how to speak in public. But, I’m a graduate of Fort Collins High School and I left 18 here and I went to California to UCLA and I stayed out there for twenty-five years. And then in 1990, I 19 decided that I wanted to come back here, and the reason that I wanted to come back here…there’s about 20 four. One was the quality of life here, I knew what the quality of life was because I grew up here, okay. 21 The next thing was the quality of the schools. I knew that my children could go to school in a public 22 school here and get just as good an education as they could if I paid $40,000 a year for them to go to some 23 private school in L.A. And, thirdly, I knew that the people in this city do what is right, and I wanted my 24 kids to grow up in a place where people would set an example of what is right and how to do the right 25 thing, even when it’s difficult. You have a tough job here tonight, because we’ve already heard that this 26 project meets the Code. And, it would be easy to rubber stamp this project and just say, go forward. But 27 I believe that’s not what we do in Fort Collins. What we do in Fort Collins is we consider everything and 28 then we make a decision to do the right thing. It’s my understanding that the NCB zoning creates a 29 transitional zone intended to serve as a buffer between high-density or commercial uses and single-family 30 residential neighborhoods. To me, this project, the way it is today, is the exact opposite of that. It places 31 high-density, high-intensity housing adjacent to single-family houses with no plan for any reduction of 32 heights in the areas adjacent to single-family housing, and no plan to mitigate the impact of bringing all 33 these people together onto two quiet streets. Since the first meeting that Mr. Bailey talked about, over a 34 year and a half ago, our requests have been consistent. We asked for four things: scale the buildings 35 down to two stories when they’re adjacent to the single-families, ensure that there’s adequate parking, and 36 increase the setbacks and landscaping to create more of a buffer between the housing, and also eliminate 37 the balconies in the units that face our property. We could talk about the TOD plan and whatever, but we 38 know that that is not a realistic plan, okay, and we know that…I’d like to use the little girl’s three minutes 39 if I could, or at least one minute of it. 40 CHAIR SMITH: I don’t think she would grant you that. Finish your thoughts, please, and then 41 we’ll… 21 1 MR. KRANSKE: We know that the students at CSU, 80% of the students bring cars. They’re 2 going to bring those cars, okay, and like everyone else said, they’re going to park on our streets, and 3 they’re going to create more traffic on our streets, which is going to make the quality of life there less 4 than it is now, and all I’m saying to you is, tonight we had an opportunity to do things to mitigate what 5 the effect of that apartment. We’re not saying don’t build it, we’re not saying we don’t want students in 6 our neighborhood, what we’re saying is four things: increase the parking, increase the setbacks, increase 7 the landscaping between the project because there’s a lot in the front, but not much in the back, and 8 remove balconies that will look into our bedrooms and look into our backyards where our children are 9 playing. And I just ask you to take our consideration seriously and do the right thing for the citizens of 10 Fort Collins. Thank you very much for your time. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board? This will be your only 12 opportunity to do so, so if you even think you might want to address the Board, you probably should. 13 BOB JONES: My name is Bob Jones and I live at 1699 Redwing Lane in Broomfield, Colorado. 14 My story is that I’ve been involved in student management housing for almost ten years now, and it’s a 15 story of ah-hah moments. Our focus has been at CU Boulder, and the first ah-hah was that students 16 typically want to do the right thing, but they don’t have the life experiences yet to know how to do the 17 right thing, or what the wrong thing is even, in some cases. So, in our small company, we developed a 18 process of educating kids before they moved in. That second ah-hah was that those kinds of behavioral 19 problems that we experienced initially in our online business changed dramatically. The things that 20 shouldn’t have happened stopped happening, by taking that time. The way we take that time, and we 21 evolved, is we developed what Mr. Bailey is…has referred to as moveinsuccess.com, which is our 22 company that we own that has developed a software platform that he has now been using for some time 23 on his properties, and other folks are using it in other areas of Denver. What we do is we provide a series 24 of tutorials that help to educate and also modify behavior, and in that process of education, most people 25 want to do the right thing most of the time, and what we’re able to do is to teach those tools to those 26 future residents prior to them getting their keys. My experience with Mr. Bailey has been that he seeked 27 [sic] out our company because he had heard about we do and the performance values that we brought to 28 the table, and he’s been very aggressive with us frankly, in making sure that we have…are doing some 29 custom work to educate his residents prior to moving in. And, it’s our belief that what we’re doing is that 30 we’re helping to make those residents better residents in the long run, not only for this particular resident 31 turn, but also into the future because we sensitize them to being better community members, better 32 neighborhood members. We just spent the last six weeks developing an entire module that works on 33 behaviors in the community, outside the four walls of the apartment. So, I’d like you to think about that 34 as a piece of technology that we’re using with a very…that is very native to these young people to help 35 them become better, better residents, okay? Thank you. 36 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. Mam, please go ahead. 37 VALERIE MCINTYRE: Hi, my name is Valerie McIntyre, I live at 1217 Springfield Drive. I am 38 a graduate of Colorado State University, I am a twenty-four year employee there, and I work in the 39 student legal services department, so I hear a lot about students’ misbehavior. And, we’re there to help 40 them become good citizens and learn about the things that they want to do as well. However, the 41 gentleman that just spoke was talking about helping them do the right thing. The things that the 22 1 neighborhood has a problem with don’t really have anything to do with students doing the wrong thing. 2 I’m not saying that there aren’t concerns of the neighbors related to behavior, but bringing a car to 3 campus is not a wrong thing. Having a car to get from Longmont, or Colorado Springs, or Pueblo, to 4 come to Fort Collins, that’s not wrong. The problem is that this complex doesn’t have enough spaces for 5 those cars. It’s not wrong to spend time on your balcony, if you’ve got a balcony, why not? But, if that 6 balcony overlooks the neighbors and takes away their privacy, then that’s a concern for the people that 7 live around that complex. So, while I admire, you know, their attempt to educate their tenants and help 8 them learn to be good neighbors, which is always a good idea, I agree with what’s been said previously of 9 the four things that are the concerns of the neighborhood, that have been the concerns of the 10 neighborhood from the very beginning, and that I really would strongly stress that the Planning and 11 Zoning Board take into consideration. I walk to work a lot of the times, I jay-walk across Shields along 12 with hundreds of people every morning. Cars, you know, it’s really dicey to get across there. And, if you 13 add a hundred more people, either jay-walking with me, or trying to get out that corner, then traffic is also 14 a huge concern. So, I would reiterate the same things that everyone has said before me and just say, I 15 really feel it’s your responsibility as this Board to think of those of us living in the neighborhood and our 16 desire to try to maintain our lifestyle and take into account those things that have been mentioned. Thank 17 you. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board on this issue? Again, this 19 will be your last opportunity, so if you even think you might want to address the Board, you probably 20 should. Anyone else? No takers, going, going, gone. Alright, we’ll move to the…at this point, the 21 applicant’s response to everything that they’ve heard. What I’d like to do, unless anybody in this room 22 objects, is take a ten minute break. And so, we’ll come back here at 8:50 and we’ll pick back where we 23 left off, and that’ll be with the applicant response. 24 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 25 CHAIR SMITH: Welcome back to the February 21st, 2013 [sic] Planning and Zoning Board 26 hearing. We’re continuing now with an item, the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, 27 and we just heard the public testimony and we are now moving into the applicant’s response to what we 28 heard in the public testimony. Please, go ahead. 29 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Once again, Carolyn White, land use counsel for the 30 applicant. In the interest of trying to be as efficient as possible, we took all the comments that we heard 31 during public comment, and broke them down, I think basically into four major categories. We heard 32 some concerns about balconies and privacy, we heard some concerns about the on-site management and 33 how that would be handled, and Mr. Chuck Bailey, the developer, is going to come up and answer those 34 two issues for you and answer the questions that were raised. Then, we also heard some concerns about 35 compatibility and parking, which are sort of interrelated, and I’m going to come back and we’re going to 36 answer those. There was also one question about the traffic study. I’m not real clear on exactly what the 37 issue was, but if you want to hear more about that, I just wanted to mention to you that Matt Delich, our 38 traffic engineer, is here and available to answer questions, but we weren’t planning to spend a lot of time 39 on that unless you want to hear more about it. So, with that I’ll ask Mr. Bailey to come up and talk to you 40 about the balconies and the privacy issue and the management. 23 1 MR. BAILEY: Hello, this is a photograph taken at dusk, so I apologize for the lack of clarity, but 2 this is from the center of the property looking southwest, and you can see a large tree there that I’ll 3 reference in the next picture as well, but that is the home…there’s the large tree. Go back to that 4 Courtney. On the far eastern most home on Bennett Street, so go back to the darker one then. So, what 5 we’re really talking about is one home, possibly the second one. This one I think is 1208 Bennett, and the 6 second one in, as having exposure to this side, and then the 1201 Springfield home, which is at the 7 immediate western boundary. I don’t count the two boarding homes on Springfield…or Shields, South 8 Shields, certainly one of them is adjacent to the site, but those have boarding licenses, they’re not really 9 single-family in their make-up and use. 10 So, with respect to what I heard tonight, I think a potential solution to the exposure issue is, 11 talking about the balconies. Go back Courtney to the other side. And this is a picture from the Bennett 12 Street Elementary School looking at the playground and looking to the northeast, so, I really don’t think 13 that there’s any exposure from the school to the site. It’s going to be…as I mentioned, these homes are all 14 lifted up four and five feet above the street level. They’re eighteen foot…I’m sorry, they’re twenty-eight 15 foot to the ridgeline so they’re another four or five above that, so they’re really at thirty-two feet. And, 16 their finished floor elevation, remember, is seven feet over our building one finished floor elevation, so 17 they’ve been pulled up by the developer, probably to create basements. But, at any rate, that’s the reality 18 we live with. So, in terms of the architecture, we don’t have a slide on it, but as an explanation, there 19 are…on building one, which…could you race back to the site plan maybe, it’s about half way through this 20 thing… 21 Building one is the most western…there you go…you can see building one on the left in the most 22 western part building. If we were to switch building one and building two, we could still conform to the 23 Land Use Code requirement of having just two identical buildings, not more than two in a row, 24 so…presently, it’s every other one, but I think we could switch…if the staff and the Board would be 25 agreeable, if we flip-flop building one and two, we could eliminate the balcony on the second floor in the 26 back of that building, so there wouldn’t be any second level balconies looking toward those Bennett 27 Street homes that we just talked about. And, the third level does have a landing, but that’s not a balcony 28 that’s associated with a residence. It’s part of the interior stair configuration tower to get to the third 29 level. So, it’s an open, railed condition, but it’s not a balcony of any sort of privacy, you know, we think 30 it affords ventilation and safety issues and all of those kinds of things for the architecture. So, let it be 31 known that there’s not a private third level balcony in any of these buildings. But, again, there is a second 32 level balcony that’s depicted in building one. If we switch those buildings, whether it’s…yeah, we’d put 33 a green in building one’s place, and we’d put a white in building two, we could eliminate those southern 34 balconies on that building. 35 The second thing I’d like to talk about is parking. It’s been stated so many times…we have fifty- 36 eight spaces reserved and dedicated on-site. We have three hundred and thirty feet of frontage on 37 Springfield, so dividing that by 20 spaces per car…that’s a standard regular size parking space, there’s 38 seventeen parking spaces immediately in front of the site, so that number equates to seventy-five spaces. 39 So, if you divide seventy-five by ninety-seven residents, you get a number that’s in the upper seventy 40 percentile for parking. We’re meeting that norm that we’ve heard…I’m not sure it’s accurate. As a 41 landlord of Pura Vida, we just did a lease last week with an international student, doesn’t have a car, you 42 know, the rents here are higher, admittedly, and you can live here and you don’t need a car. That’s the 24 1 whole concept behind the TOD. If you build it, they will come, and we find that we don’t know what our 2 actual number is because we just don’t have that statistic, but we don’t think it’s 80%. But, even if 3 applied that number, I think we’re right at that threshold with parking that’s immediately in front of the 4 site. And, these students are going to get there, they know that poachers come in to park here, and they 5 can get there and park on the street immediately in front of the property. 6 The second issue I’d like to talk just quick about is the dumpster. We…if any of you have seen 7 Pura Vida, we take great pride in our dumpster. And, it’s expensive, and it’s a Cadillac, but it has a roof 8 on it, it has an overhead garage door, and it has a keypad, and so we don’t take the trash from, you know, 9 anyone. And, if you saw the inside of this dumpster, it’s mind-boggling. It’s clean because people aren’t 10 hook-shoting bottles into our dumpster, and we’re able to recycle and sort trash in our dumpster. So, 11 we’re going to have an overhead door and a lockable man door and a roof on our dumpster. So it’s not 12 the norm that, you know, everybody is fearful of just being a cesspool of odor and filth. And that’s part 13 of the overall scheme of the community. 14 And then, finally, I’d like to talk about management. You know, it’s often said that, you know, 15 gee, are you going to have a manager? And, I don’t know honestly. When I started Pura Vida, I didn’t 16 have a plan to have a manager. We have an on-site manager there now, and it’s very conceivable that we 17 will have an on-site manager here in this community as well. I don’t know, and you k now, you often 18 hear about, gee, are you going to have a 24-hour manager, are you going to have a manager that lives on- 19 site? And, we hire the best manager we can, and if the first criteria of hiring a manager is, will you live 20 on site, we’re not going to get the best manager, we’re just going to get the manager that’s willing to live 21 with college students largely. So, that’s not our first criteria. You know, it could happen that we find 22 somebody that’s, you know, their upper 20’s that…they’re single, and you know they need a place, and 23 that’s all part of the compensation package, but we’re looking for the best manager, not somebody that 24 can cohabitate. And, if they do live there, they’re not there 24-7. We have a very exclusive and very 25 aggressive program of managing our properties and, you know, to my knowledge, we haven’t had any 26 police complaints at Pura Vida. And, we have security cameras; we’ll have security cameras in this 27 community, on the parking area, in the corridors, and all of those sorts of things. How does the manager 28 find out if there’s a problem? It’s just like the neighbors find out, and that manager serves as a buffer, 29 because the neighbors inside the community will alert our manager. And our manager will live in the 30 immediate area you know, we can be sure of that. And that manager will be there if it’s twelve midnight, 31 whatever, somebody kicks the door down, that’s part of the job description. So, it’s, you know, we’re 32 very particular about who lives in these communities and we have to be, and that’s just part of the 33 program. So, in conclusion, Carolyn will speak to a couple other issues. 34 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just would like to address now the two, I think, 35 overriding issues of compatibility and parking, which are interrelated in some ways. There were a lot of 36 comments about compatibility and so, just so we all know what we’re talking about, I want to come back 37 to what the definition of compatibility is in the Land Use Code, and it’s contained in your staff report. 38 They don’t have page numbers; I think it’s at about page five or six. Compatibility does not mean the 39 same as, compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow 40 them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility 41 include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular 25 1 traffic, circulations, access and parking. Compatibility does not mean the same as, rather compatibility 2 refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. 3 Then I want to mention that Neighborhood Conservation Buffer concept and the idea that the uses 4 that are allowed here, including as a use by right, multi-family up to three stories, are intended to buffer 5 the single-family from the more intensive uses. In this case, the more intensive use on the other side is 6 the University. There was a comment about this project being high-density or high-intensity. In fact, by 7 all industry definitions and by the defined terms in the Code, this is very low-density multi-family 8 housing. This, in and of itself, is the buffer between the higher density use of the University and the 9 lower density of the single-family homes in the neighborhood. That’s exactly what the West Central 10 Neighborhood Plan is talking about in terms of designating this area. Further, in the West Central 11 Neighborhood Plan, it talks about how areas that are designated as development or redevelopment 12 parcels, which this parcel is, is a recognition that the predominant use and intensity of use around it is not 13 necessarily the most desirable use overall and that there ought to be a transition to more intensive uses. 14 Again, that’s exactly what this project is designed to be. So, in every possible way it’s as compatible as it 15 possibly could be. And, another way that you can make uses which are different…admittedly, multi- 16 family is different from single-family, but another way that you make two different uses compatible under 17 that definition, and under the 3.5.1 definition, is architectural and building massing. And, you heard 18 Chuck Bailey talk about how the very first neighborhood meeting he had, you know, prior to the required 19 neighborhood meeting, he was thinking about building a regular old, twenty-four unit, single block, one 20 unit, relatively massive, compared to the rest of the neighborhood, type project. And you heard loud and 21 clear this concern about compatibility with the neighborhood, and at much greater cost, both in terms of 22 construction and architecture, turned around and broke the project up into five separate individual 23 buildings, all with four-sided wrap-around architecture, and unique features like porches, and overhangs, 24 and hip roof, and gabled roofs, and front porch lights, and those balconies, which are not on the third 25 floor, to be clear. And so, this project is designed with great sensitivity to the neighborhood and is 26 exceedingly compatible. 27 That brings me to parking, which is another element of compatibility. It was pointed out to me 28 that, in addition to the actual numerical standard of zero parking on-site contained in the TOD overlay, 29 there’s also this general standard contained in Chapter 3 that says that location and number of off-site 30 parking is one of the things you consider in determining whether or not something is compatible with the 31 neighborhood. I again would turn to that table that was both in the staff report and in our PowerPoint 32 presentation talking about the actual number of parking spaces that exist for other similarly-situated 33 multi-family developments in the TOD overlay district. Now, another…one of the citizens said that this 34 project has the maximum amount of density and the minimum amount of parking. That’s not technically 35 correct; the minimum amount of parking would be zero on-site parking spaces. This project has fifty- 36 eight parking spaces, which is actually quite a lot given that there’s none required. And, the reason for 37 having those parking spaces, and some of the buildings were moved around in order to try to maximize 38 the parking spaces, is to try to ensure that compatibility with the neighborhood, that there would be 39 adequate parking for the type of market that this product is designed to attract. Similarly, this is far from 40 the maximum amount of density that can fit on this project. As I mentioned earlier, this project could be 41 40% larger and still be well within the FAR that is the maximum allowance for this zone district. And, 42 it’s not, it’s at this level in part because that’s how, when you take into account all of the setbacks and the 26 1 buffering, and the desire to add those fifty-eight spaces of parking, that’s how much is left that you can 2 actually build in. 3 So, all of these factors were taken into consideration. And, at the end of the day, a lot of people 4 talked about how they’ve felt uncomfortable with the TOD zoning overlay as a whole, and that may be 5 the case, and perhaps that needs to be revisited. But, right now, today, that’s the zoning that applies to 6 this property and that is what your Code says is allowed on this property. And, if you were to deny this 7 project because it complies with the zoning, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. So, I would ask you to take 8 those factors into consideration as well as the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. And we believe 9 that this does meet all of the requirements for compatibility, it meets all of the requirements for parking, 10 and it meets all of the other requirements in all of the applicable chapters. There was a comment made 11 that if you’re not asking for any modifications, you’re not being creative enough. Believe me, designing a 12 project that meets within all of those modifications, including the TOD overlay and the sensitivity and the 13 compatibility, requires a great deal of creativity. And, you heard Becky Stone, the architect, talk about 14 the fun, creative architectural challenge that presented for her as an architect. So, with that, we would ask 15 for your recommendation of approval, and I would just reiterate what Mr. Bailey offered at the beginning, 16 and that is to address that concern about the potential for privacy…concern about privacy as a result of 17 the balconies, that by switching those two buildings, one and two, that that concern can be completely 18 eliminated, because there is only one location in the entire project where there’s even the potential that 19 somebody standing on one of those balconies could see into somebody else’s backyard. And, there’s no 20 potential that anyone could see into the Bennett Elementary School. So, if you did choose to approve this 21 project and you wanted to impose that as a condition, of switching those two buildings, the applicant 22 would be amenable to that. Thank you for your time and attention and we’re happy to answer any 23 additional questions you have. We ask for your favorable recommendation. 24 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. While we have the applicant there, ready, and before we get into 25 the staff response, does any Boardmember have a question they’d like to ask of the applicant? Or a 26 clarification? 27 BOARDMEMBER GERALD HART: I have a question about the applicant…I don’t know if this 28 is the appropriate time. It seems that you’re attempting to deal with concerns that the people on Bennett 29 Road had with their privacy…one of the other concerns I had was the third floor structure. Is there any 30 way that could consider moving building one to make that a two-story structure and leave the rest of the 31 buildings as three? 32 MR. BAILEY: I guess what we’re trying to accomplish here is, like I said, back to the future, 33 we’re doing something that we think is innovative and different and we’re starting to put one hand behind 34 our back and, you know, we’re willing to find solutions that are amenable. If we could…if building one 35 as switched would need to become a two-story building to make the project a success with the Board, we 36 would be willing to consider that, yes. 37 BOARDMEMBER HART: Thank you. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Emily, did you have a question? 27 1 BOARDMEMBER EMILY HEINZ: Yeah, Mr. Bailey, I have a couple questions for you as well. 2 It seemed like…I took notes on the things that seemed to be concerns, so I wanted to ask you if it would 3 be possible to move the trash further east anywhere on site? Just as a thought…further east, away from 4 the houses. 5 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, one of the issues is that we have permeable pavers in the core area of the 6 south parking area, so these trash trucks come into that, and they’re going to probably destroy that 7 component. I’m very concerned about that, because, you know, originally…I would like to put the trash 8 back at number one, and you know, the City staff admonished me for that, and I understand why, but I’ve 9 built communities with the trash dumpster near the entry, and we use it as a signage opportunity. Again, 10 as I told you, we’re going to have an overhead door, we’re going to put the same roof material on it. So, I 11 would be willing to move it back to site one, and that would certainly get it away, farther away, from that 12 back area. 13 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I guess I don’t know where site one is… 14 CHAIR SMITH: That was out by the street right? And what was staff’s issue and reasoning? 15 MS. LEVINGSTON: There was a twofold concern, one was related to engineering requirements; 16 the other concern is about accessibility for all the units. When it’s placed in the first position right here, 17 it’s basically very accessible to building one, but there was concerns about the distance from, you know, 18 building five, building four, it was far away. It was easier access with the sidewalks in this location to get 19 to this final location. It seemed to make more sense. There was also an engineering standard that either 20 Tyler or Marc can speak to. I must have been mistaken. 21 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, you mean mistaken about the engineering standard? 22 MS. LEVINGSTON: The engineering standard. 23 CHAIR SMITH: So it was exclusively about proximity for building five? 24 MS. LEVINGSTON: As far as planning was concerned, yes. 25 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay. 26 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay thank you for that. A couple other questions were…there was 27 comments from the neighbors about wanting increased landscape buffer, like increased evergreens. Is 28 that a possibility? 29 MR. BAILEY: We meet the Code and that’s certainly been established as the norm for this 30 development, so I don’t know what we can do to enhance that. It’s pretty strong Code for landscaping. 31 We’ve got a mitigation plan, all the trees that we’re taking down, a lot of them are, you know, older…but 32 we’re mitigating all those trees 100%. 33 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay, and I know that we don’t require parking, but when I look at 34 your site plan, there’s something here in the parking lot in the southwest corner…southeast corner, there’s 35 like a…is that a little concrete island maybe? It looks like it could conceivably be two extra parking 36 spots. 28 1 MR. BAILEY: The bump that Courtney’s pointing to? 2 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I don’t see you pointing at anything. Yes, that. 3 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, that’s a tree that we’re protecting, and forestry asked us to do that. 4 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay. 5 MR. BAILEY: You know, we could…we’d be happy to… 6 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Leave that there, leave that there. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s do this. Let’s move to the staff response to some of the public 8 testimony. I think we might…I don’t want to get too far into discussions with you, you know, on what 9 you might or might not be willing to do, until we’ve had the opportunity to hear from staff, I think, 10 especially, Ward, I think you read our mind about what we want to probably talk about soonest, and that 11 is…if we can I want to get into what we heard from one of the citizens about some flawed traffic impact 12 studies, and just some of that rationale. I got lost in it a little bit there, so we might even need to go back 13 into it. But, Ward, if you tracked what was being said, if you could comment on it and clarify for us, I’d 14 be grateful. 15 WARD STANFORD: Good evening Board, Ward Stanford with Traffic Operations. Going 16 through the items that I had heard from Mr. Rovnak, they talked about…on that attachment A there were 17 the changes at the bottom of it, the other traffic study’s component, that showed Bennett Bungalows, and 18 then the special study about Bennett School. Those…that attachment A was my document, and those 19 changes are my changes. I conducted the review, the attachment A creation, and the changes. The aspect 20 on the other traffic studies at Bennett Bungalows, I put that down there at first and then recalled and 21 realized that, well, Bennett is already built. The people are there, the traffic is already on the street. It 22 doesn’t need a traffic review to estimate what’s already existing and happening on the roadways. We did 23 counts out there so we captured that traffic actual versus the estimate from a traffic study. So, that’s the 24 reason I took the traffic study back off, it doesn’t provide anything additional that we don’t find in doing 25 the review of the traffic on the street. 26 CHAIR SMITH: Ward, excuse me real quick. I just want to make sure the applicant has 27 everything that we got in this packet and you’ve had a chance to review it…okay, okay, do you want one 28 of our copies? I just want to make sure that you have the opportunity to look at this. Thanks Emily. 29 Maybe Gerry will share with you. Alright, sorry, Ward continue, please. And, if you don’t mind, 30 because I think this was…this is information we got kind of late, so if you would, you know, every now 31 and then, if one of the Board…maybe pause for a second to show us exactly what you’re talking about, 32 that would be helpful. 33 MR. STANFORD: The attachment A that is, that was being referred to, should be in the first part 34 of the appendix of the traffic study, one of the first sheets. And, you’ll see at the bottom, the red crossed 35 out stuff, surprisingly I almost always write with a red pen, and so…why it’s in black to begin with, must 36 not have had a pen that day. But, anyway, the cross-outs are mine. 29 1 The second item which is at the very bottom of that attachment A was the special study statement 2 and I had put in there talking about the Bennett School area. But after considering it, after we concluded 3 the review, I also thought about how the traffic patterns and human behavior, because traffic is a human 4 behavior study much more than it is moving cars. Why would somebody go over into that area from this 5 site? As they spoke of, around the school in the morning drop-off, it is congestion. There is a…with the 6 current…I can’t think of the right word, the open drop-off…the school of choice aspect…traffic has 7 picked up considerably around area schools due to parents taking their children to schools and dropping 8 them off. And certainly elementarys have always had that. But they have a considerable drop-off and 9 pick-up in the morning rush hour, in the afternoon period also, and it is congested with the parents 10 coming in, dropping off, turning around to go back out, as well as the homeowners there trying to use 11 Bennett as well. For this location, for this site, to decide to double back around, go up Springfield, over 12 City Park, and back down Bennett into that…they’re not gaining anything by doing that as far as we see 13 it. We see they’re walking into a more difficult situation than just coming out of their drive, going to 14 Shields and Springfield, and trying to make their left of right turn there. The conditions are the same as 15 far as, once they get to Shields, there’s a lot of traffic on Shields. They’re going to have difficulty making 16 a left turn out no matter what street they’re using out there, unless they go back to the signal light at City 17 Park and Elizabeth. The other considerations of being at that location, again why it’s in our view, worse, 18 is being at Bennett, you’re closer to Lake Street and also to Prospect. Lake backs up…congests back up 19 southbound left turn onto Lake backs up across Bennett. So, getting an opening to make that left turn out 20 sometimes can be quite difficult. So, Springfield’s further away. Little less problem with the congestion 21 backing up and actually blocking the roadway. Both of them will have a southbound sight distance 22 problem, looking to the south to see if the northbound traffic is clear to make a left turn out. Bennett will 23 be worse, again it has the congestion from the two close intersections. As you move north from there, 24 that improves somewhat. You get away from the queues of traffic, you get a better view of northbound 25 traffic as well as southbound. You can make a quicker decision, take a quicker gap. And, I’ll break if 26 anybody has questions. 27 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I do. Ward, my understanding, and maybe I got 28 this wrong from the citizens, wasn’t so much about traffic trying to exit out onto Shields as it is about kids 29 coming in to Springfield to park, having it be too parked out, and going on to Bennett to find their parking 30 so that they can then walk over to campus. And so then, you know, there’s that high drop-off and pick-up 31 time at 9:00 and 3:00, but then the rest of the day, it perhaps seems more appealing from a parking 32 standpoint. I know that’s not exactly in the purview of a TIS, but that was some of my understanding of 33 why the neighborhood was concerned about Bennett in particular. 34 MR. STANFORD: That aspect I’d probably have to pass over to planning, the parking is not 35 something that I address. And the TOD background, and all of those characteristics, it’s just not 36 something we’re involved in or have a conversation on. 37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask you one related question that I do think is in your 38 expertise? Is Springfield too constrained to do diagonal parking in front of the site that’s proposed? 39 MR. STANFORD: There’s pros and cons to the diagonal parking. There’s cons to it for bicycle 40 use…the backing out into bicycle use, much as you might have found on Mountain down in Old Town 41 and stuff…the visibility of folks. Some believe that the bikes should be closer to the back of the cars. 30 1 I’m more of a supporter, they ought to be more in the middle of the roadway because it gives them grace 2 space. But, there’s that characteristic that diagonal…or that parallel parking doesn’t have. Parallel is 3 safer in that regards to the use of bikes and stuff out there. It’s a forty foot wide roadway, same as 4 Bennett is, so there’s a decent amount of width for parallel parked vehicles and bike lanes, and travel 5 lanes to all coexist fairly well. When you put them on the diagonal, you’re going to use up a good bit of 6 that space and make it tighter, make it feel a good bit more constrained. Is it a positive or negative or 7 could it be done? I won’t say it couldn’t be done, I just think it’s….especially in that area where we are 8 truyly hoping for a high level of alternative modes, a high level of bicycle use. We would want to try and 9 do whatever is the best and most safe for the bicyclists. 10 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: On that note, is Springfield going to be planned to be re- 11 striped? I don’t think that there’s any painted bike lanes on it now are there? 12 MR. STANFORD: I do not think so, and typically neighborhood streets, we don’t stripe them on 13 there. 14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, just while I’m in this vein, sorry Courtney…and then, 15 I know that Shields has had a lot of discussion over the years about what we can do from a safety 16 standpoint, if there is a long term plan to do a median and to do some of those right in right out, left 17 turn…multiple turn movements in Shields. And, can you speak at all to that and sort of the long-term 18 vision for how the City might address some of those issues. 19 MR. STANFORD: Well, I know my supervisor, Joe Olson, the City Traffic Engineer, has meet 20 with some various folks…I think Transportation Planning, I believe a little bit of the biking 21 community…it isn’t in recent months, but it isn’t all that far past. I’ve not been involved in it, but I know 22 they’re starting to look at areas…is what can we do out here for the pedestrian and cycling safety out in 23 that area. Very tough thing to deal with from the standpoint of space, for like overpasses and stuff, or 24 even underpass tunnels. But again, even when we provide certain facilities, it doesn’t necessarily mean 25 people use it. You can go over by the hospital at Doctors Lane and Lemay and watch any given morning 26 and thirty feet away from the head crossing, people will walk out and stand in the middle of morning rush 27 hour traffic on that double yellow line. Baffling to us, but at the same time we also recognize they have a 28 high level of attention going on, a lot better than the average walker across a crosswalk does. So, looking 29 at what will work, what will get people to use it and stuff, is going to be a pretty good effort, but I know 30 it’s in the works, I know it’s desired to be done. 31 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I thought it was of note that Bike Fort Collins has been 32 doing bike counts on some of our streets, and they noted 204-224 daily bike use trips on Springfield 33 coming out onto Shields, and so that seems like maybe it would warrant some sort of treatment. 34 MR. STANFORD: It was interesting, even that last snowfall we had about a week ago, and just 35 watching as some congestion we had out there due to the bad driving conditions, and we still saw cyclists 36 come out from I think it was south, or the street that’s right beside the football field, come across, go to 37 the west side of the southbound traffic in the left turn lane and drive up that against the opposing traffic 38 and maneuver their way across, so, yeah, I fully agree with you that we’ve got some vision to work out 39 down there and to find some answers. 31 1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so Courtney, do you have any, I mean, anything right away that you want 2 to be able to hit on that we’ve talked about? And I think maybe, you know, the Board can probably ask 3 you some questions unless you have something that you specifically want to get into. I guess one thing, 4 if…I’m sorry I probably just interrupted you. You were about ready to speak. I’m sorry, okay…one 5 thing is, you know, I want to just kind of put away this whole idea about the dumpster, and to me I guess, 6 if we can go back to it for a moment. That…I think it was the site plan…there’s…you know, I want to go 7 back into some of the rationale for staff to have that moved, because it seemed to me that they’re about 8 the same distance, and so I guess I’m not really sure if it would be too onerous for the applicant to move 9 back to his preferred site, number one, which also seemed it would be a little bit more agreeable to the 10 neighborhood perhaps. 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes, at first I thought it was a sight distance triangle issue, and that’s why I 12 was looking at engineering for that answer, and apparently it’s not an issue with sight distance triangle 13 from that access point. So, if the Board would like to consider having the…an alternate location for the 14 trash, that’s something that City staff will definitely work towards at time of final, and include that in the 15 plan. 16 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: If you think that that’s a preferable location. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Rather than just to trust that would be on final, 20 you could probably include that as a condition of approval. 21 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, that’s where I was…yeah, kind of going with. I mean it seems like we 22 could probably knock down some of these low-hanging fruit type things, we can get to the meat. But, 23 hold on one second, if you don’t mind, we’re going to continue with staff and then we’ll come right back 24 to you on a couple things. What else do we have, questions for Courtney? Go ahead Jennifer. 25 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: Well, I guess back on the trash thing, I guess I 26 don’t quite understand why our only two choices are where it is and…it seems to me that it would be 27 better incorporated into the center of the project rather than in…on the outskirts of it. And, I guess I’m 28 not sure what the reason was, why we…why it couldn’t be moved further east so that it really is 29 more…with closer to all of the buildings and would be better for the neighbors. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Gino? 31 BOARDMEMBER GINO CAMPANA: I was going to say, you had a site plan that showed the 32 surrounding homes and the detention pond that would be advantageous to be looking at. We have a very, 33 very small one in our packet so…yeah. 34 CHAIR SMITH: There you go…proximity. Do you have it? 35 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: While you’re finding that, I think the answer that the applicant 36 gave on that was, in order to reduce the requirement for detention, those are impervious pavers, and the 37 wear that a heavy trash truck puts onto a parking lot could cause problems with those impervious pavers, 32 1 that haven’t been used all that frequently in our community, which there could be some truth to, and I 2 don’t know if there’s a way to design a lane or something that a trash truck could travel on, but it seems 3 like moving the dumpster area across the parking lot adjacent to the detention pond would probably be the 4 best location. 5 CHAIR SMITH: I think that…I mean the, you know, the trash truck likely would be backing in, 6 or at least backing out, so you’d have some… 7 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I think those pavers have to hold a fire truck in traditional 8 design, so I’m guessing it probably will be okay. Normally we won’t…I’m going to diverge here a little 9 bit from what we normally do…normally we don’t sit up here and design someone’s project. 10 CHAIR SMITH: Try not to. 11 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: We try not to…I think that the applicant has done a great job 12 meeting our Code. I think that this is a situation that our TOD policy, and the need for housing, and the 13 fact that this is a true infill site, has a lot of conflict, and I think my objective here tonight is to try to find 14 a compromise that the applicant could build, and the applicant may say it’s cost prohibitive because we 15 can’t build that project with that number of units. But, this is an infill site and when we have an infill site, 16 meeting the Code isn’t the full burden. And, I think if this was a site that’s out by Observatory Village 17 and you have an apartment project next to a potential residential neighborhood in a field, meeting Code 18 works. Compatibility comes into play much, much more on an infill site like this. So, I think you…the 19 applicant has gone out of the way with the architecture and trying to be compatible with the architecture 20 in the neighborhood, trying to be sensitive to massing of the buildings, but even if we’re in a new 21 subdivision…we travelled as a Planning and Zoning Board a year or two ago, probably ten or twelve 22 apartment sites throughout Fort Collins, to look at what density is. You know, what does a fifteen 23 dwelling unit per acre project look like, versus a twenty-two dwelling unit per acre. And, what are the 24 transitions that are used between homes…single-family homes, and apartments. And, I can tell you that 25 at the twenty-two dwelling unit per acre site, and the fourteen dwelling unit per acre sites, look drastically 26 different. And this is pushing forty dwelling units per acre. That’s the first thing. Second thing is, even 27 in these neighborhoods, we always would prefer a transition of a two-story next to a single-family house, 28 to a three-story. Great example of that is the Sidehill condominiums at Drake and Timberline. All those 29 buildings are designed two-story to three-story and they abut single-family houses, and the massing feels 30 right. So, I heard…we heard from eighteen people, citizens, tonight, seventeen of which have issues with 31 height of the buildings next to the single-family house, parking, privacy, and the sheer mass and size, 32 quantity of residents. And, there was some on the dumpster. I think the dumpster is an easy solution, any 33 designer could come up with a solution for that that continues to meet Code and solves some of these 34 problems. 35 And, I don’t believe…there’s not a single infill site that we’re going to see…I’ve been on this 36 Board for seven years, and I think between Andy and myself and Jennifer, we figured it’s like twenty-six 37 or twenty-seven years…we’re never going to have an infill site that comes before us that doesn’t have 38 citizen input. And, usually it’s the citizens that have issues with the project. The ones that like the 39 project don’t usually stay here until ten o’clock at night to tell us what’s going on. So, I don’t think it’s 40 right for citizens to come and design your project for you when you’re meeting Code either…I understand 41 your sentiments on that. But, on the other hand, it is an infill site. We have to find some compatibility 33 1 here, and I encourage you, and I think you are doing that. You’ve already made several compromises 2 here. And, but, it seems to be that if you lowered the height of building one and building five…I’ll 3 summarize this because I’m going on and on here. But, one and five, if those were decreased to two-story 4 units, you’d have that transition from single-family to your three-story in the middle. That would give the 5 reduction that many people are asking for, it would decrease the burden on the parking; you could still 6 maintain the same number of parking spaces. The adjustment that you’re already offered, taking the 7 balconies off looking into somebody’s yard, I think that’s a valid compatibility issue. I think you’re…the 8 project’s pretty close with those. Now, you may come back and say, well I can’t afford to build a project 9 losing those units, but my position is to try to find a compromise here that allows everyone to leave here 10 tonight content. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Jennifer? 12 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I would have to say I basically agree with everything that 13 Gino said, I think that there’s too much…the mass and scale. The one thing I don’t agree with…I don’t 14 think it actually does meet our Code in every way, because we have compatibility standards and building 15 height, bulk, mass, scale…the differences between this and the single-family residences…I don’t believe 16 they are compatible in the mass and scale. So…what Gino has said about taking building one and five 17 and making those two-story, and those kinds of things, I think it’s a great idea. I think we’re close but 18 we’re really not there. So, it’s something that I would have to see some changes on. It bothers me to be 19 here tonight designing a project, or making those kinds of changes to your project. But, I think you’re 20 getting our thoughts of what it would take to make this, for me anyway, feel like it could be compatible 21 with the neighborhood and fit in. 22 CHAIR SMITH: I think we’re moving into deliberation, but before we do, just, you know, 23 formally, is there any questions that we have right now? 24 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: The only reason why I kind of went into that dialogue, because 25 usually when we’re in deliberation, we’re not allowing the applicant to address us. And, so I was 26 throwing it out there a little bit early in case there was some further compromise that the applicant wanted 27 to have, we could hear that before we deliberate. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, alright. Well, let’s do this, let’s continue with our deliberation and 29 what we might do is kind of pull together thoughts, questions perhaps that we would want to have staff 30 address or the applicant to respond to. So, I welcome some more thoughts and comments from the Board. 31 Gerry, go ahead. 32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I fundamentally agree with Gino, I’m not totally convinced that 33 building five that fronts on Shields Avenue needs to be only two stories, because the transition is to the 34 parking lot, and then there are the houses to the south, but are they long-term as single-story structures or 35 are they going to also get redeveloped as multiple-family? So, I’m not as convinced on building five. 36 But, it appears to me that the developer has, with the tentative agreements I guess we’ve had, addressed 37 most of the concerns, and the biggest one is, is that…that hasn’t been addressed, is the parking. Reducing 38 the number of a couple of units, I think, will help that parking situation somewhat, but our objective here, 39 in the NCB area and in this area along Shields, a hundred yards from the University, is to get some 40 intensive development in lots that are not very intensively developed so that we don’t have all the traffic 34 1 running around town. And, I think this development does that, particularly with the things that we’re 2 talking about for compromises now, with minimal impacts on the neighborhood. So, that’s kind of where 3 I’m coming from. And, it’s not the fault of the developer that we have a TOD zone that doesn’t require 4 him to provide any parking. I mean, I think they’re providing fifty-eight times more parking than they’re 5 required to provide by our Code. Is the problem with us or is the problem with our Code? I think the 6 problem is with the Code and the TOD district. Enough. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Emily, were you going to speak? You don’t have to…okay. One thing I think 8 is important to recognize…like I said when we started the meeting, is that we do have two different roles 9 on the Board. One is a legislative function, one is quasi-judicial, and when we do quasi-judicial, we’re 10 the guardians of the Code and we’re enforcing the Code. Do you meet the standards; do you not meet the 11 standards? When we do legislative, we make recommendations, we change policy…or, we don’t change 12 policy, City Council does…we make those recommendations, we do an analysis, we…and the citizens 13 often have, and often have had, a very significant role in the way that policy is shaped, the policy that’s 14 articulated in our Land Use Code, and then that becomes the law, the rules, for everybody to play by. It 15 provides predictability for all the stakeholders and so, where I think that what makes our function unique 16 is that we operate, in this case, where we’re very much limited by…and our focus is narrow in its purview 17 to be what the Code allows. What the zoning is, and what the zoning should be, are really two different 18 issues for two different times and two different discussions. And, so, you know, I think that that’s 19 something that we…everybody in this room, citizens, staff, Boardmembers, should probably recognize 20 for a moment, is that we might want to change things, and especially since we’ve been dealing with very 21 emotional TOD issues, and redevelopment issues, and established neighborhood character in areas where 22 there’s redevelopment pressure, but also even, you know honestly, the…like in this case, the West Central 23 Neighborhood Plan, that citizens were involved in to develop, calls for targeted redevelopment areas that 24 are in close proximity to activity centers and transit. This is one of those projects that follows what has 25 been called for in a comprehensive plan. And now we’re faced with, okay, how are we actually going to 26 implement this, and I think the developer’s been…how does he do a project that fits that? Because there 27 was allegedly a lot of thought in that process, a lot of community outreach, a lot of citizen engagement, 28 and so now we’re at a point where even the citizens…I mean, obviously with a lot at stake, are being 29 asked to hold up what’s going on with the implementation of those comprehensive plans, with, okay now 30 this is actually…I can see that, it’s on my street. And, we’re going to continue to have these problems, or 31 these challenges. And, we have talked…and I’ll get into some more focused discussion here in a second, 32 but we’ve talked about the need, perhaps, to continually review implementation of the TOD as it being 33 either an aspirational goal or functional or both. And, we need to have that discussion; we need to 34 continue having it. One thing, it’s clear…I think we’ve got [sic] better as a community as this is not 35 about student behavior. I think the first time…we had a discussion about student housing, it was almost 36 all about student behavior, and that was very uncomfortable and it wasn’t one of our proudest moments I 37 think as a community to be honest. We’ve…I’m very proud that this community’s gotten beyond that 38 and we’re talking about, you know, this is just multi-family and more of the real issues that we are 39 supposed to be dealing with. 40 I do think that, largely if not entirely, this project is meeting the letter of what’s required. And 41 so, I do see that there is some opportunity here that the applicant has presented with, you know, 42 modifying the project perhaps in a way that would be responsive and sensitive to the citizens. A lot of 43 times, and this is another point, is that, a lot of times we hear the citizens will say, just absolutely not, 35 1 don’t want it at all. And, what was so far refreshing in the discussion we heard tonight was, you know, 2 we want this to be scaled back a little bit, scaled back, not just a no, so I’ve been very proud that the 3 citizens have been reasonable in saying that…it could happen, something should happen, but let’s just 4 take the edges off of it a little bit. So, you know, I want to hear some more from the Board a little bit 5 before we kind of tie this us, but I do want to make sure we probably get to a conclusion here pretty soon 6 on it. 7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman? Maybe before you go any further in 8 the debate, I think you might be asking the applicant once again about some of these possible changes so 9 they might have a change to come before you again. There’s one section of the Code that we haven’t 10 talked about very much, and we’ve talked an awful lot about the TOD requirement, which basically says 11 that multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the TOD zone shall have no minimum 12 parking requirement. Not to say they can’t provide parking, they just have no minimum. And that’s 13 under the category of parking lots, required number of off-street spaces, designed I think for the needs of 14 the development and the development’s occupants. And, it’s under the theory that if there is the TOD 15 zone in place, the development occupants will ride the bus or do whatever they do in the TOD zone, and 16 don’t need the parking spaces. The part that we haven’t talked about much is the compatibility part of the 17 operational, physical compatibility standards. And it says, conditions may be imposed upon the approval 18 of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing 19 neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on, and 20 then there a list of seven things…the seventh one is location and number of off-street parking spaces. At 21 first I thought, well, we should apply the standard rule that, when you have two provision of a law, you 22 try to read them in harmony and figure a way to read them together, and as hard as I tried, I thought it 23 would be pedagogory to do that, it’s like I’m dancing on the head of a pin. To say well, one says no 24 requirement and the other one says maybe, depending on compatibility, which took me then to the 25 conflict standards of the Code, and in the conflict of interest provisions of 1.7.2, if you have a conflict in 26 the Code itself, one saying no parking, the other saying maybe some parking…and all of this, I should 27 say, all of this…isn’t prefaced on any idea that this doesn’t meet either of those requirements, because 28 there are fifty-eight parking spaces provided, but the conflict says that the more specific standard will 29 control, and if you can’t figure out which is the more specific, then the more stringent one controls. So, 30 then I’m trying to think, which one’s the more specific? One deals with the TOD and says zero; that 31 seems like a specific number doesn’t it? Zero, as in no parking requirements, while the other one deals 32 with compatibility and says you can address the issue of, and condition approval on the location and 33 number of parking spaces. I’m sure Carolyn White will disagree with me. I think, in my mind, these are 34 equally specific. One specific to the requirements of the occupants, that’s the TOD requirement, the other 35 specific to compatibility with the neighborhood, so…if I’m right about that, and you can disagree with me 36 as well, then the question is which is the more stringent? To me, I’ve always felt the more stringent one 37 is the one that makes the applicant the most uncomfortable I suppose, to put it in kind of a vernacular, 38 otherwise it wouldn’t be as stringent. And that just, I just want you to know that so that in case you need 39 to address the parking a little bit more in your discussion…maybe you don’t, maybe the fifty-eight 40 parking spaces is perfectly fine, complies under either standard…certainly complies under the TOD 41 standard, and it might comply under the operational compatibility as well, but I wanted to call that to your 42 attention. 36 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thanks. I think you helped inform our discussion, but I don’t think you really 2 made a decision…I mean, okay, we’re back to square one. 3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Not my job to make a decision. 4 CHAIR SMITH: We’ll start with the staff presentation again…okay, anybody else have some 5 comments at this point? 6 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just wanted to say that I’ve been so impressed with your 7 neighborhood, we’ve seen several projects and I’m continually impressed that your neighborhood is so 8 organized, and very articulate, and very thoughtful. You, by far, are some of the most engaged 9 neighborhood residents that we have who actually speak to the things that are before us, and I really 10 appreciate that. And, I think that even…even if we end up making decisions that don’t completely satisfy 11 you, I think that the City is very much hearing that your neighborhood feels threatened, and I think the 12 SHAP is going on, the West Central Neighborhood update is going on, the Parking Plan is looking at 13 ways that they can address parking in your neighborhood, and so I think that I want you to feel heartened, 14 regardless of what happens tonight, because I think that we definitely take your issues of compatibility 15 very seriously, and we definitely are concerned about meeting the quality of life that you have enjoyed 16 and we hope that you continue to enjoy, as well as seeing the things that we have outlined in our City 17 Plan the policies that we have for infill and redevelopment and higher density along these corridors. So, I 18 just wanted to say that as well. 19 CHAIR SMITH: Any other comments real quick before…go ahead, please do, yeah, any 20 questions. 21 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Would…I think Brigitte brought up the traffic across Shields, 22 getting to the college. Is it possible to have any sort of an extra traffic light, anything to help with all that 23 cross traffic? 24 MR. STANFORD: At that Springfield location, a traffic light would be difficult due to the 25 proximity to Lake Street; it’s only about six hundred feet away. Now you would have, in that reversible 26 left turn lane, you’d have competing cars trying to be in that same space with that high volume of traffic. 27 It is not a location that we’d…we’d have a real high difficultly with putting a signal there. 28 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Crossing guard maybe? 29 MR. STANFORD: Not to say that couldn’t be something worked out; I mean the city does have 30 that around schools. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Well, clearly, I mean…I think you know, having lived around there and gone to 32 school there, been there…I mean it’s, you know, I think there’s been I don’t know how many guys, I 33 mean…I’ve seen three or four of them where a car hits a bike, and there was a guy that got killed, I think 34 maybe a couple times. I mean, it’s playing Frogger and it’s a free-for-all there largely. And, I would just 35 hope at some point that we could find the resources and the will to address it, perhaps even like, you 36 know, I think they’ve done a good job with, you know, like…in Boulder with Broadway, you know 37 where it turns, you know, going underneath pedestrian tunnels and what have you. But, just to be able to 38 get creative with it before somebody else…to many folks get killed there, it’s pretty rough. So… 37 1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: It is one of our highest ped/car conflict areas, isn’t it one of 2 our highest accident areas? 3 MR. STANFORD: I couldn’t address that straight out, it’s just not the area that I study. 4 CHAIR SMITH: I used to fly down that on my bike to school, going down Springfield, and I 5 could time it enough where I would not even stop. I hate to say…I mean I could roll, and I was late to 6 class, I’d roll…I’d pop through there and you just hit the brakes if there’s a car coming, and I’ve seen it 7 now…yeah, I wouldn’t do it now, but I mean I see it all the time. Anyway, we can digress on that. 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think the Parking Plan stuff has also come out of 9 planning. And I know…I guess the sense that we have is that they’re not yet ready to sort of hit the 10 ground, is there a way that we could implement some of those things sooner? And, particularly, on 11 Bennett Street, if the issue really is concerned with kids crossing, could we do like a one-hour parking, or 12 do permits with the neighbors, or some sort of solution to mitigate some of those issues? 13 MS. LAURIE KADRICH: I believe Courtney is giving the nod over this way. I know that we are 14 working on the Residential Parking Plan, in that we could…I could certainly forward this neighborhood 15 for consideration as to one of the first neighborhoods to look at. 16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think that it would be great…if I had a magic wand, I 17 would hope that the City would do something about the parking in this neighborhood sooner rather than 18 later, and I think we’ve discussed this several times. And, also prioritize safety along Shields for bike and 19 peds, because I think that it is…it has been one of our top areas I think for many years, and we still 20 haven’t prioritized it or resourced it, so… 21 CHAIR SMITH: And I think we’ve…we’ve identified, I mean, for everybody’s information, is 22 we’ve identified a discussion about TOD to be urgent in the sense that we’re going to take it up at our 23 annual retreat here in…next week. And so, I think that I would hope that staff might be able…let’s, I 24 think we need to not only kind of restart TOD, the discussion, but broaden the scope a little bit to have all 25 the implications downstream included in that, and just be a little bit…I mean very comprehensive in the 26 discussion about it. So, anyway… 27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Gino, I know you want to start; can I just finish my last 28 thought? I definitely agree that I would feel like this development was more compatible if building one 29 was two stories. I agree with Gerry, however, that building five to me is not as much of a concern. 30 CHAIR SMITH: I agree as well. Gino? 31 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, I think with the issues we heard tonight, there’s five or 32 six, transportation…I’ll give you my opinion on it, I don’t have the concerns…I’m not concerned with the 33 traffic impact study, I think there was a good study that’s been done, the traffic is what it is, and another 34 crosswalk won’t prevent guys like Andy from just riding across the street, and hopefully someday we 35 have an overpass, ped overpass. But, people will still have to go to the overpass and use it, so, maybe we 36 just need more police officers there giving tickets when they’re crossing illegally. I think that the other 37 comments I heard were the height of the buildings, particularly when they’re adjacent to the single- 38 family. The parking, which I think I heard several times tonight a 20% reduction in dwelling units and 38 1 keep the same amount of parking, and the privacy issues. Dumpster came up quite a bit and I think we’ve 2 got some solutions for dumpster. I think that the building one balconies and reducing to two stories 3 solves a lot of it. I think we’re very, very close to having a compromise where we’re not going to see this 4 project in an appeal. And, I think we’re good enough at what we do, and we’ve got a great applicant, and 5 a great neighborhood. We can find a compromise here and stay out of the appeal process, because I agree 6 with Andy, what I heard from the neighbors, all eighteen, well, with the exception of one, was, we 7 understand this project…there’s going to be some student housing in our neighborhood, we just want it to 8 be more compatible with our single-family houses. So, I would support the project with the dumpster 9 being relocated and the balconies being removed on building one, and I’m going to throw it out there 10 knowing that there’s two of you that don’t agree with me, but I’d like to see buildings one and five 11 reduced to two stories rather than three, I think that does accomplish the transition because we’re 12 speaking to what is there today, which is a single-family house, not what could potentially be developed 13 there, but also that does reduce the number of dwelling units that are on the property…doesn’t hit the 14 20% reduction, but it comes closer to it than one floor, and I could support that now. 15 CHAIR SMITH: So now is probably a good time…if the Board’s agreeable…sorry, it’s my 16 penalty points for having that…remember I said at the beginning, too…sure enough here, cell phones. 17 So, sorry about that. I’d like to maybe see if we could have the applicant step up and maybe let’s just 18 have a little bit of some feedback as to whether or not what Gino is proposing might be feasible. 19 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for the opportunity to respond one more 20 time since you are talking about proposing, I think, some conditions of approval. I don’t want Paul to 21 leave the room because I don’t want him to miss this opportunity to say that I’m going to refrain from 22 disagreeing with him on this…I do disagree with the interpretation advanced by Paul but I think it’s 23 probably a moot point, because whether you consider both standards, or whether you consider only the 24 compatibility standard, or only the TOD standard, whichever standard you consider, I believe this project 25 is well in compliance. So, I think the TOD is the more restrictive…is the less restrictive, but the more 26 specific standard, and if there were a conflict, that that one should govern, but I don’t think it matters, 27 because even when you consider the compatibility standard with fifty-eight parking spaces, this project 28 certainly meets that additional standard as well. With that said, the Board has indicated that there are 29 some potential changes it would like to recommend to the plan, and that if those changes were made, it 30 might be interested in considering this favorably. I’m going to ask the applicant himself to respond on 31 whether or not these are compromises he can make. But, just as an overall statement, I’d like to mention 32 that all of these things always are requiring trade-offs and balances. So, for example, if you move the 33 dumpster in one location, you might gain some additional parking spaces, but you might lose some open 34 space. And…or you could move it where the protected tree is, but then you would also gain more parking 35 spaces, but you’d lose the tree. So, the current configuration was designed to try to balance all of those 36 things. If there’s a different prioritization that the Board would like to recommend, then I think that’s 37 definitely something that the applicant would be willing to consider. So, with that, I’ll let Mr. Bailey tell 38 you which of these compromises he thinks the project can live with. 39 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 40 MR. BAILEY: Number one… 41 CHAIR SMITH: Sorry Mr. Bailey, real quick, Courtney? 39 1 MS. LEVINGSTON: Mr. Chair, I wanted to draw your attention to Section 3.5.1(I) regarding the 2 dumpster, and the reason why…the location on the north did not work. Upon further review of the Code, 3 there is a provision that dumpsters cannot be closer than twenty feet from a public sidewalk or right-of- 4 way, and so when it’s placed in that location that is closer to the street, it is in conflict with the Code 5 provisions. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. 7 MR. BAILEY: Just first off, does anybody have a CSU score? 8 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, we do, I think. 9 MR. BAILEY: Now, to less important items. Courtney, in looking at the plan, the buildings are 10 thirty feet…it seems like we can move that dumpster and stay with the contextual setback of thirty feet 11 from… 12 MS. LEVINGSTON: Well, I looked at the plan and scaled out. Because of the curvature of 13 Springfield Drive and where it would be located, it looks like it would be right at eighteen, nineteen 14 feet…with the scaled plan. 15 MR. BAILEY: Well, I mean we could trade parking and gain parking where the dumpster is now, 16 lose some parking and push it, you know, farther…there. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Oh, push it down this way, as long as its twenty feet. 18 MR. BAILEY: Now to the issue about will the residents take their trash…they’ll take their trash 19 there. We’re not going to have trash, you know, lying around the property. In our Pura Vida community, 20 the trash dumpster is in the alley and it’s probably a hundred and fifty feet from the back door, and people 21 are coming down three stories…I don’t think that’s a reason to hang up on that subject, so, we would be 22 fine with that. And, we could dress this thing up. Again, it’s going to have an overhead door, it’s not 23 going to be something that you drive down the street and look into. It’ll have signage on it; we had our 24 signage there anyway, you can see a small monument, so we can dude up the side of this thing quite 25 nicely. 26 With respect to the change of building one, as Boardmember Mr. Hart had asked me, I would be 27 agreeable to making…if we could switch those buildings and, I don’t…you know the footprints are 28 substantially the same I think. But, we would switch the green building to that location and then we 29 would limit that building to a two-story building, we would be agreeable to that. I don’t think there’s a 30 need…I respect the idea of building five being two-story because it’s adjacency…but those are boarding 31 house…I mean there’s only a handful of boarding house licenses in the city…four-bedroom 32 accommodations, and those are two of them right there. So, I don’t see the sensitivity for building five 33 that I see for building one. So, I’m agreeable to building one but not building five. And then finally, just 34 to sum this up, you know, moving building one, the new building one, to two-story, we lose six residents. 35 So, we’ve gone from ninety-seven to ninety-one, and that’s 7%. We didn’t hit their 20%, but there’s a 36 7% reduction in residents there. I think that’s, you know, I’m agreeable to it but I think that’s going the 37 wrong direction for density around the campus as I explained, but I would be willing to accept that and, I 38 think you’ve got to now look at the parking ratio being, you know, over a smaller denominator. So we’ve 40 1 just pushed that number up to something in the low 80’s, so I think we’re in conformance, if again…if 2 you include the fifteen spaces that I think exist immediately in front of this community on Springfield 3 Street, so…I think that’s all I have to say. Thank you. 4 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Okay, let’s move into final deliberation and maybe a motion. What 5 do you think, are we there? One thing before we do, I guess…I think that if everything that the applicant 6 was willing to do, I would be welcome to for sure. I do think that building five could stay three stories, in 7 my opinion. I don’t think that one would need to be dropped down. 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: It’s on an arterial, and I mean that is where we have always 9 concentrated a lot of our density in our Land Use Code. I think I’m okay…I think that is consistent with 10 what we typically do. 11 BOARDMEMBER HART: From my perspective, this gives us some housing oriented towards 12 students, in close proximity to the University. I think we’ve done everything we can legitimately do to 13 reduce the impacts in the neighborhood, and I think the dumpster, since it is an enclose area, is not going 14 to be that big of an effect, however, I would like to see it be moved as far as possible from the residential 15 area, single-family areas. And, I think staff can work with the applicant in that. That would be my… 16 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. I think one of these days it would be nice to even have some, you 17 know, especially in these targeted redevelopment areas, to have a standard for a dumpster to be somewhat 18 like what the applicant is proposing. That might, you know, this is an issue that’s not going to be the last 19 time we hear it. Emily? 20 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Like a dumpster hut. Yeah, I don’t want to define the location of the 21 dumpster, but I was starting to get a little concerned about the house to the west as well, so whatever. I 22 think just what Gerry said was very concise, like far away from residential areas. I also just am very 23 impressed by both the neighborhood and the applicant to have specific requests, not just like yes or no, 24 and being really reasonable to work together to meet…I mean I’m new on this Board, but it feels like a 25 really great step forward in compromise and I guess, in a way, deal making, but not…like making 26 something really work, so it feels really good. And, I feel really good about the reduction and the 27 switching of the buildings that you’ve offered, so…that’s my two cents. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, anybody else have comments or do we want to make a motion and let’s 29 move? Gerry, want to go ahead? 30 BOARDMEMBER HART: I move to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project 31 Development Plan number 120035, and in support of my motion I adopt the findings of fact and 32 conclusion as contained on page thirteen of the staff report. And, I would…in my motion I would say 33 that there be three conditions: that the dumpster be moved to a more amenable location to have less 34 impact on single-family residences, building two be moved to building one…on our site plan, and that the 35 new building one be limited to two stories. 36 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Second. 41 1 CHAIR SMITH: One thing, too, I would just maybe, to clarify or it might need to be a friendly 2 amendment, is just to better clarify the…the dumpster condition. Because I think we were talking about it 3 being more north, is that right? And across the parking lot? 4 BOARDMEMBER HART: Having the least possible impact on the residential area, the single- 5 family residential area. 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: So would that be north or more east…I’m just confused as where exactly 7 are you talking about to move it...north or to move it east and more internal to the site? 8 BOARDMEMBER HART: I was kind of hoping…I was kind of hoping that you could work with 9 the applicant to get it away from the single-family area and put it in an acceptable location to meet the 10 Code, but I didn’t want to design the specific location. 11 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well I think the staff ought to have better direction 12 than that when they… 13 CHAIR SMITH: Well I think it’s got to be. My sense is on the other side of the parking lot. And 14 I’m not sure whether the applicant would feel comfortable… 15 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Andy, were you going to say north of the retention pond, when you 16 reference north? 17 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah I was going to say…yeah. Well, north of there to where the applicant had 18 originally proposed. 19 MS. LEVINGSTON: In that location there is a plum thicket that that would…have to be removed 20 and mitigated for as well. 21 MS. KADRICH: I think that what, if I could clarify…didn’t the applicant propose near building 22 one? 23 MS. LEVINGSTON: This is where the trash is located currently. 24 MS. KADRICH: Right, and go…go north of there, go towards Springfield…and isn’t that where 25 the applicant would like to have it now? And that that was the original area, but because of the twenty 26 feet, we weren’t able to get…and I’m only clarifying this because I think this is the location that the 27 applicant would prefer due to the type of paving that is in that parking lot, and not wanting to have the 28 trash trucks go through there all the time. So, if the Board’s agreeable with that, then that’s the location 29 we’ll work towards, and that should move it further from the residential areas. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, if we’re getting clear on it, let’s make sure that we’re clear with the 31 applicant as well. 32 MR. BAILEY: I think location one…it probably needs to move a little bit south because, like 33 Courtney mentioned, it’s too close to the setback and all, but we can find a location moving it just slightly 34 south where she’s got the arrow. We’ll lose a little bit of parking there, and we’ll gain it where the 42 1 corner…where we vacated, where location three is…just put the arrow…yeah, so we’ll pick whatever we 2 lose up, so it’ll be no worse for wear on parking. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 4 MR. BAILEY: And we can also, because of that location, we can pour concrete in the parking lot, 5 so the trucks…and it was mentioned that, you know, fire trucks drive in here, but the trash trucks drive in 6 here twice a week, and the fire truck drives in here, hopefully, never. And the landscape area 7 immediately to the west of the dumpster location…up, no, farther north…there. That’s big 8 enough…we’re going to lose a tree on our landscape plan, but we can put it back there and provide 9 additional screen, berming, and all that for the neighbor that’s immediately west right there. And, 10 again… 11 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Then could you add parking so that you’d get a couple more 12 parking places in where it is now? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, I believe we can pick up three spaces there. And, we probably lose 14 two…maybe we can pick up one, I don’t know, that’s wishful thinking, but you know, we can try. I think 15 it’s a win-win, at least from that perspective. 16 BOARDMEMBER HART: So should I amend my motion to say move the dumpster to 17 location…location one as provided on the visions in the site plan? 18 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I think so, or at least in the vicinity of that location. 19 BOARDMEMBER HART: In the vicinity of location one. I so amend my motion. 20 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 21 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I second the new motion. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. We have a motion on the table, any discussion, further comments? 23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I’d just like to say thank you for being willing to compromise 24 here tonight, makes our job a lot easier. And I think the changes will make the project a better project, 25 more compatible with the neighborhood. 26 BOARDMEMBER HART: I agree with that. 27 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. You know the one thing is I remember…last thing I’ll say about it is, I 28 remember Mayor Ann Azari saying, you know, almost twenty years ago, you know, let’s build a city. 29 And, I wish that she was still around to be able to see us actually do it, you know, in neighborhoods that 30 were special to her, so…absolutely. Alright, roll call please? 31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 32 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 43 1 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Heinz? 3 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Yes. 4 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 5 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 7 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 9 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, we’re done with the Carriage House Apartments Project 10 Development Plan. 11 BOARDMEMBER HART: And again, I also want to thank everybody for coming, working with 12 us in trying to resolve this. ATTACHMENT 7 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council May 21, 2013 1 1 Appeal of the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Courtney Levingston, City Planner 2 Background: Site Location . S. Shields St. Springfield Dr. N 2 3 Project Background • 1.48 acre site • 57 Units / 97 bedrooms – 29 1-bedroom units – 16 2-bedroom units – 12 3-bedroom units • Traffic impact study submitted to Planning and Zoning Board as an attachment to staff report. 4 Planning and Zoning Board Action • The Board voted 6 - 0 to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application with conditions. • In support of its motion to approve the Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 13 of the staff report. 3 5 First Assertion • Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. – The Appellant maintains that the submitted traffic impact study contained information relating to estimated trip generation which was substantially false and grossly misleading. – The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the traffic impact study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 6 Second Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the faulty information contained in the traffic impact study was further skewed by a 25% reduction in trips to account for alternative modes of transportation. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the 25% trip reduction contained in the Traffic Impact Study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 4 7 Third Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the City and/or the traffic consultant used a recent study of student housing trip generation in Minnesota (Spack Memorandum) to estimate trips for the Carriage House Apartments. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the Spack Memorandum during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 8 Fourth Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the submitted traffic impact study was flawed because of the use of standards used in outside municipalities that relate to student oriented housing. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the Spack Memorandum or specifics of the Traffic Impact Study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 5 9 Fifth Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the adjusted trip generation estimates used in traffic impact studies was also prevalent in other project approvals and have a negative impact. The Appellant also maintains that the flawed trip generation will negatively impact Street Oversizing fees collected. • The Board did not discuss the impact of trip generation rates contained in the submitted traffic impact study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. 10 • 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. 6 11 Questions for Council • Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? REVISED DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Lindsay Ex, Dan Weinheimer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27 SUBJECT (Highlighted text indicates changes made to this Agenda Item Summary since 12 p.m., Monday, May 20) Red Text indicates changes made by 5 pm Tuesday, May 21. Items Relating to the Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC. (Continued from April 23, 2013). A. Resolution 2013-036 Approving an Amendment to the Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC (Options 1, 2 and 3). B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2013 Terminating the Moratorium Imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 with Respect to Oil and Gas Operations Conducted under an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC and Exempting Such Operations from the Prohibitions Contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code (Options 1, 2 and 3). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 19, 2013, Council approved an Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to conduct oil and gas operation in the city limits. The terms of the Agreement ensure stringent public health and safety measures are in place through Best Management Practices (BMPs), which generally exceed current requirements mandated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), and provide strict controls on the release of methane gases and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The Council also adopted on First Reading, Ordinance No. 057, 2013, by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson, absent: Poppaw), removing the Moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012, with respect to an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy. • Option #1- Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Resolution 2013-036 will further amend the Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to clarify that (1) no new drilling will occur in any plugged or abandoned well in the Fort Collins Field and that (2) all Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules to be effective August 1, 2013 will apply to any exploration and drilling activities in the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA), and (3) along the west and southern boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot set-back shall be required from any residential area in accordance with COGCC standards of measurement, and (4) the Amended Agreement must be approved by Council and in effect on or before executed by both parties on or before June 1, 2013. • Option #2 – Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Limit the Agreement to the Fort Collins Field by removing UDA from the Operator Agreement and prohibit re-entry into plugged and abandoned wells. While the Whereas clauses for Options #1 and #2 have changed substantially, the substance of the Operator Agreement in Options #1 and #2 is the same, with the exception that the Agreement needs to be executed by June 1 instead of June 15. • Option #3 – Amended Operator Agreement Resolution 2013-036 Resolution 2013-036 will further amend the Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy to include some options suggested in Option #1 plus the following (1) certain portions of the Agreement apply to existing wells within the City limits of the Fort Collins Field , and that (2) will insure any wells drilled in the UDA from the initial drilling phase through completion will be required to have a $10,000,000 per occurrence policy that covers Pollution and Cleanup, and General Liability, and that (3) increased setbacks will be required in certain areas of the UDA, and that (4) the Amended Agreement must be approved by Council and take effect on or before June 1, 2013. May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 27 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION During Council discussion on March 19, 2013, questions arose regarding the inclusion of Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) in the Operator Agreement. Staff responded incorrectly as to when staff was aware of the UDA. The UDA was disclosed on March 1, 2013. Staff received the first Operator Agreement that included the UDA on March 7, 2013. Council further inquired as to how development of the UDA may occur. Generally, Prospect Energy is limited to the terms and conditions contained in a confidential Surface Use Agreement (SUA) with Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated signed in April 2011. According to the Larimer County mineral lease notice (Attachment 4), the SUA is for a primary term of three years expiring March 2014. If, at the expiration of the Primary Term of the SUA, lands not then included within a producing or spacing unit are not engaged in drilling or reworking operations, then the lease expires. According to the notice, an option to extend the agreement for an additional three years is available if Prospect Energy makes an additional payment. In addition to any requirements imposed by the SUA, any oil and gas development would be required to comply with the Council-approved Operator Agreement. A key aspect of the Agreement requires the following: Conceptual Review – No less than thirty (30) days prior to the submission of an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) (note: APD is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) permitting process), Prospect Energy will schedule a meeting with the City to review the proposed new well or drilling activity. The goal of this meeting would be for staff and the applicant to review the proposed oil and gas operation in a manner that ensures compliance with the operator agreement and applicable state and federal regulations. This pre-submittal meeting will also allow the applicant and staff to: • explore site-specific concerns • discuss project impacts and potential mitigation methods including field design and infrastructure construction to minimize impacts • discuss coordination of field design with other existing or potential development and operators • identify sampling and monitoring plans for air and water quality, and other elements of the operator agreement as contained in Exhibit A (Best Management Practices). Option #3 Amendment Conditions Staff was asked to further negotiate with Prospect Energy on the following conditions: 1. Would Prospect Energy agree to adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMP) contained in the Operator Agreement for existing wells in the Fort Collins Field? Prospect Energy is willing to apply certain BMP’s to the Fort Collins Field for wells contained in the City Limits provided that any existing wells in the Growth Management Area (GMA) are exempt. Prospect Energy has agreed in whole or in part to 22 of 48 sections of the BMPs; see Attachment 8 for details. 18 of the 48 sections of the BMPs do not apply so Prospect Energy has agreed to 22 of the 30 sections that apply to the existing field. 2. Would Prospect Energy increase insurance provisions? Prospect Energy agrees to provide liability insurance that covers pollution, cleanup and general liability in the amount of $10,000,000 per occurrence during the initial drilling of a New Well through completion. Following completion, Prospect Energy will provide ongoing pollution, cleanup and general liability coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, and general liability umbrella coverage in the amount of $5,000,000. 3. Would Prospect Energy agree to increase the set-backs to 2000 feet rather than 1000 feet along the southern and western boundaries of the UDA? May 21, 2013 -3- ITEM 27 Prospect Energy agrees to increase set-backs for certain portions of the UDA as described in Exhibit C; 1500 feet from the proposed school lease line and 1000 feet from the lease lines where residential or building units exist (see Attachment 6). 4. Would Prospect Energy agree to increased inspections by the City? The Agreement, Appendix A, Number 8 already provides the City with the right to inspect the Company’s operations and sites during business hours, upon the giving of 24 hours advance written notice to the Company. Staff believes this is sufficient to allow for any inspection in addition to what COGCC may provide. 5. Would Prospect Energy allow additional monitoring or alert systems to be placed within the Fort Collins Field or in the UDA? Prospect Energy is unable to commit to any property uses within the Fort Collins Field or the UDA as they are not the property owners. Staff believes that there would be other public or private property options available if Council wishes to consider this monitoring at a future date. Prospect Energy has indicated that if Option #3 is not approved on May 21, 2013 they will withdraw the option. Staff was also asked to respond to citizen questions by preparing a list of questions and answers, and then post them on the Oil and Gas Web-site (http://www.fcgov.com/oilandgas/) for easy access by the public. This was completed on May 7, 2013 and subsequently updated to include questions answered during the Oil and Gas Presentation held May 8, 2013. Council asked staff to hold a community meeting specifically providing an opportunity for those residents who may be most affected by an Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy to an informational meeting. An invitation was extended to approximately 3,000 residents to attend such a meeting on May 8, 2013 at the Lincoln Center. At least 120 persons attended the event which included informational table displays with opportunities to ask questions of project team members, a presentation outlining the proposed agreement and possibility to exempt Prospect Energy from a City Moratorium prohibiting any new oil and gas development and ban from new drilling and operations conducted by Prospect Energy in the Fort Collins Field (city limits) and the UDA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to have the Best Management Practices described in the Operator Agreement apply to the UDA, Staff recommends adoption of the Revised Amended Option #1 Option #3, Ordinance No. 057, 2013 on Second Reading and Resolution 2013-036 - Amending the Agreement to clarify that: (1) no new drilling will occur in any plugged or abandoned well in the Fort Collins Field; (2) all Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules to be effective August 1, 2013 will apply to any exploration and drilling activities in the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA); (3) along the west and southern boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot set-back shall be required from any residential area in accordance with COGCC standards of measurement; (4) Certain portions of the Agreement apply to existing wells within the City limits of the Fort Collins Field; (5) The Agreement will insure any wells drilled in the UDA from the initial drilling phase through completion will be required to have a $10,000,000 per occurrence policy that covers Pollution and Cleanup, and General Liability; (6) In addition to (3) added set-backs will be required for certain portions of the UDA as described in Exhibit C; 1500 feet from the proposed school lease line and 1000 feet from the lease lines where residential or building units exist; and (7) the Amended Agreement must be executed by both parties on or before June 1 15, 2013. May 21, 2013 -4- ITEM 27 ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 19, 2013 (w/o attachments) 2. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary – December 4, 2012 (LUC & Moratorium) (w/o attachments) 3. Ordinance No. 145, 2012, establishing the Moratorium 4. Copy of Work Session Agenda Item Summary - April 23, 2013 (w/o attachments) 5. Oil and Gas Information Meeting summary, May 8, 2013 6. Appendix C – Option #3 Set-back boundary map 7. Powerpoint presentation 8. Comparison Table: Option #3 Application of BMP’s to existing field COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: March 19, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Lindsay Ex Dan Weinheimer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT Items Relating to an Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC. A. Resolution 2013-024 Approving an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2013, Terminating the Moratorium Imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 with Respect to Oil and Gas Operations Conducted under an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement Between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council is considering the approval an Operator’s Agreement with Prospect Energy that would permit Prospect Energy to conduct oil and gas operations in the city limits. The terms of the Agreement ensure stringent public health and safety measures are in place through Best Management Practices (BMPs),which generally exceed current requirements mandated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), and provide strict controls on the release of methane gases and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If the Agreement is approved, Council will consider adopting Ordinance No. 057, 2013 removing the Moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 with respect to an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Oil and gas production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field (Attachment #2), located in the northeast portion of the city. The Fort Collins Field is regulated by the COGCC and has been in production since about 1925. In the city limits, the field consists of seven oil producing wells and seven injecting wells, all of which are managed by one operator, Prospect Energy. Prospect Energy is unable to drill new wells since Ordinance No. 145 (Moratorium) was approved December, 2012. In addition, the company is no longer able to utilize hydraulic fracturing since the adoption of Ordinance No. 032. Prospect Energy also holds certain leasehold interests within the City described as the Undeveloped Area (UDA), as depicted in Attachment #2. Council allowed for exemptions from Ordinance No. 032 provided a Council approved operator agreement was in place that includes strict controls on methane release and adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare of the city. The recommended agreement with Prospect Energy contains such provisions. A summary of those provisions follows with more detailed information contained in Exhibit A to Resolution 2013-024. Summary of Controls for Methane Gas Prospect Energy captures all gases from production and tanks and routes them to a thermal oxidizer for destruction. This method currently results in over 99% of all emissions being destroyed. The COGCC rule requires 95% of emissions be destroyed. This proposed Agreement requires at least 98% destruction and use of a thermo-oxidizer for emission destruction to be utilized for any new wells in the Fort Collins Field. In the UDA, Prospect Energy will capture and destroy emissions at the well (Exhibit A -Section 21 (b)) or send through a thermal oxidizer. Prospect Energy also agrees to comply with: • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 21 (Section 21 – Exhibit A) • No uncontrolled venting of methane (Section 21 – Exhibit A) • Minimal flaring during drilling and completions (Section 21 – Exhibit A) • Develop and maintain a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) (Section 21 – Exhibit A) N Use a Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera N Notify the City for observation of testing • Green Completions (Section 22- Exhibit A) COPY COPY COPY March 19, 2013 -2- ITEM 28 • Containment of all produced water or flowback fluids and no permanent storage of waste products (Section 45 – Exhibit A) Summary of Best Management Practices (Public Health and Safety Measures – details in Exhibit A) Setbacks – Any new wells drilled will conform to the current COGCC rules which will be five hundred (500) feet from any building and one thousand (1,000) feet from any institutional facility beginning August 1, 2013. However, in the Fort Collins Field, new wells must be constructed on existing well pads because of an existing Surface Use Agreement (SUA), which conform to previous COGCC setbacks. Those well pads are located near or within Water’s Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions. Conceptual Review – No less than thirty (30) days prior to the submission of an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) (note: APD is the COGCC permitting process), Prospect Energy will schedule a meeting with the City to review the proposed new well or drilling activity. The goal of this meeting would be for staff and the applicant to review the proposed oil and gas operation in a manner that ensures compliance with the operator agreement and applicable state and federal regulations. This pre-submittal meeting will also allow the applicant and staff to explore site-specific concerns, to discuss project impacts and potential mitigation methods including field design and infrastructure construction to minimize impacts, to discuss coordination of field design with other existing or potential development and operators, to identify sampling and monitoring plans for air and water quality, and other elements of the operator agreement as contained in Exhibit A. Community Notice –Prospect Energy must provide community and staff notice. Prior to an APD, the Agreement specifies mailed notice, posted notice, neighborhood meetings and also a notification to the public prior to the commencement of drilling. Consistent with Option “B” of the proposed Land Use Code regulations, notice is required for any oil and gas operation to surface owners within two thousand six hundred forty (2,640) feet of the parcel and to persons registered in writing with the Planning Director. Closed Loop Pitless Systems – are required for the Containment and/or Recycling of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Wells shall be drilled, completed and operated using closed loop, pitless systems for containment and/or recycling of all drilling, completion, flowback and produced fluids. Chemical disclosure and storage - the City will be provided, in table format, the name, Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number, volume, storage, containment and disposal method for all drilling and completion chemicals (solids, fluids, and gases) used on the well pad. Fracture chemicals will be uploaded onto the Frac Focus website. The City will also post such information on the City website. The Company will not permanently store hydraulic fracturing chemicals, flowback from hydraulic fracturing, or produced water in the current City limits. Electric equipment – Prospect Energy will be required to utilize electric-powered engines for motors, compressors, and drilling equipment and for pumping systems when feasible in order to mitigate noise and reduce emissions. Emergency preparedness plan – Prospect Energy is required to develop an emergency preparedness plan for each specific facility site, which shall be in compliance with the International Fire Code. Among other provisions, the plan shall be filed with the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins Office of Emergency Management and updated on an annual basis or as conditions change (responsible field personnel change, ownership changes, etc.). The plan includes a provision establishing a process by which the operator engages with the surrounding neighbors to educate them on the risks of the on-site operations and to establish a process for surrounding neighbors to communicate with Prospect Energy. Air Quality – Prospect Energy must comply with emissions regulations as required by State and Federal laws. In addition, there will be no uncontrolled venting of methane. All gas vapors will be captured to the extent practicable. Vapor capture equipment will operate at 98% efficiency or better. There are no gas sales lines in the Fort Collins field because the quantity and quality of gas is low and not marketable. If salable gas were to occur in the UDA, a sales line would be constructed. The Operator will develop and maintain a leak detection and component repair (LDAR) program according to EPA Method 21 for equipment used in permanent operations. LDAR will be performed on newly installed equipment, and then on an annual basis. A forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera will be used as the preferred implementation method of EPA Method 21 as available from the state; if unavailable, other methods will be COPY COPY COPY March 19, 2013 -3- ITEM 28 used in compliance with this method. Upon request from the City, Prospect Energy will implement EPA Method 21 should additional concerns arise. At least once per year, Prospect Energy will notify the City prior to FLIR camera use in case the City wishes to observe the method. Prospect Energy and the City will split the costs of baseline sampling and analytical work performed by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties over a five (5) day sampling period. Prospect Energy will conduct air sampling during well completion. Periodic air monitoring will be performed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Prospect Energy will perform field monitoring using the Jerome 631 XC or equivalent instrument annually, or until such time that odors are not detected past the Fort Collins Tank Battery fence line in City Limits. The City may require additional air monitoring as needed to respond to emergency events such as spill, process upsets, or accidental releases or in response to odor complaints in City Limits. During well completion, the capture and beneficial use of natural gas is preferred over flaring. However since the Fort Collins field has so little natural gas it is not reasonable to capture the gas and as such minimal flaring will occur. What flaring does occur will be monitored twenty-four (24) hours per day. During production the flare shall be fired with natural gas and shall be operated with a ninety eight (98) percent or higher VOC destruction efficiency. An automatic pilot system shall be used when feasible. Other ignition systems will include the installation and operation of a telemetry alarm system or an on-site visible indicator showing proper function. Water Quality Monitoring Plan – Prospect Energy shall comply with COGCC Rule 609. In summary, this requires pre- and post-drilling testing. The rules require oil and gas operators to sample all “Available Water Sources” (owner has given consent for sampling and testing and has consented to having the sample data obtained made available to the public), with a cap of four (4) water sources, within one-half (1/2) mile radius of a proposed well, multi-well site, or dedicated injection well. Water sources include registered water wells, permitted or adjudicated springs, and certain monitoring wells. Prospect Energy agrees to the following requirements above and beyond the COGCC requirements: analyzing for dissolved metals as indicated in the Land Use Code; sampling intervals to be baseline (before drilling), post-drilling at one, three, and six years. Analytical results will be shared with the COGCC, the City, and the landowner. All spills, for new and existing wells, shall be managed in accordance with COGCC regulations. Soil Gas Monitoring – The City, at its discretion, may conduct soil gas monitoring to assess well casing integrity. This would be typically completed within 90 days of new well completion. The City shall notify the Operator prior to entering the site for soil gas monitoring. Spills - The Company shall comply with COGCC Rule 609 “Spills and Releases”, and notify the City and whenever there is notification to the COGCC. The Company shall also copy the City on any written correspondence to the COGCC or other regulatory authority. Transportation and circulation - Prospect Energy shall include in their applications detailed descriptions of all proposed access routes for equipment, water, sand, waste fluids, waste solids, mixed waste, and all other material to be hauled on the public streets and roads of the City. The submittal shall also include the estimated weights of vehicles when loaded, a description of the vehicles, including the number of wheels and axles of such vehicles, trips per day and any other information required by the Traffic Engineer. Preliminary information is required for this item for the Conceptual Review meeting, in accordance with Exhibit A. The Company shall comply with all Transportation and Circulation requirements as contained in the Land Use Code as may be reasonably required by the City’s Traffic Engineer. Wastewater and Waste Management - There will be minimal waste water in the Fort Collins Field, as there will be no tank batteries (produced water and oil storage) in the City for the Fort Collins field. As described in “Closed Loop System” and “Green Completions,” there is no discharge of fluids and fluids are contained. Storage, transportation, and treatment of wastes during well drilling and completion are handled by third party contractors, under the direction of the Operator. Waste is stored in tanks, transported by tanker truck, and disposed of at licensed disposal facilities. In the UDA, new secondary containment shall be constructed of steel, with sufficient perimeter and height to hold one and one-half (1.5) times the volume of the largest tank and sufficient freeboard to prevent overflow. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment enclosed a fired vessel. The requirements for secondary containment will meet the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. No land treatment of oil impacted or contaminated drill cuttings are permitted. The use of a closed loop drilling system precludes discharge of produced water or flowback to the ground or the use of pits. Produced water or flowback will not be used for dust suppression. A copy of the field’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) COPY COPY COPY March 19, 2013 -4- ITEM 28 will be given to the City, which describes spill prevention and mitigation practices. The Company will provide the City documentation of waste disposal and its final disposition. Water supply – Prospect Energy will identify in the site plan its source for water used in both the drilling and production phases of operations. The sources and amount of water used in the City shall be documented and this record shall be provided to the City annually or sooner, upon request of the City Manager. The disposal of water used on site shall also be detailed including anticipated haul routes, approximate number of vehicles needed to supply and dispose of water, and the final destination for water used in operation. Comparison with LUC Option “B” During Council deliberations, direction was given to staff to proceed with negotiations for an Agreement with Prospect Energy that was consistent with the Land Use Code provisions reviewed by Council in Ordinance No. 144. While Ordinance No. 144 was not adopted it contained regulation for oil and gas exploration and production. One of the options was for a single-track development review process that generally contained more stringent regulations than currently required by the COGCC and was described as Option “B”. Staff prepared a matrix illustrating how the proposed agreement with Prospect Energy meets or exceeds requirements in Option B (Attachment 3). Other Conditions of the Agreement Through this Agreement, Prospect Energy will comply with all BMPs for New Wells as defined as a “Company- operated well spudded during the term of this agreement, and located on either a currently existing well pad or a new well pad that is located within the City limits.” In other words, BMPs will not apply to previously developed wells either inside or outside the city limits owned by Prospect Energy. Approving this agreement requires Prospect Energy to comply with the terms of the Agreement and removes any further development review permitting process. However, the Agreement provides for public and staff notice, staff review and periodic inspections of any New Wells. Prospect Energy will also be required to use the most stringent regulation in effect whether the regulation is a State, Federal or required by this Agreement. The term proposed in the Agreement is for five (5) years with successive five (5) year terms, until either Party wishes to terminate the Agreement. The Agreement is binding to anyone who acquires either the Fort Collins Field or the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA). There is also a non-performance clause in the Agreement which allows for mediation and court remedies in the event the performance is not “cured.” If Council approves this agreement, Prospect Energy has indicated they would continue operating the Fort Collins Field and potentially increase the number of wells by six (6) to eight (8). As required by a SUA all new wells will be drilled from existing well pads thus minimizing any future surface impact from the new drilling. It is likely that hydraulic fracturing would be utilized in the operation of the field. This fracturing would not be in conjunction with horizontal drilling and does not require intensive water usage seen in other natural gas developments. For example, the last six (6) hydraulic fracturing processes in the Muddy J Formation - Fort Collins Field averaged 114,129 gallons of water compared to 380,272 for a Wattenberg Vertical well or a Wattenberg Horizontal well requiring 2,992,374 gallons (data provided by COGCC). In addition, it is likely that the Fort Collins Field will not produce any marketable gas due to the extremely low quantity of gas contained in the field. Prospect Energy also holds certain leasehold interests within the City described as the Undeveloped Area (UDA) as depicted in (Attachment #2). If Council approves this agreement Prospect Energy intends to explore oil and gas development in the UDA. It should be noted that Prospect Energy has Surface Use Agreements with the surface owners for the Fort Collins Field (since 1988, amended 2001) and the UDA (2011). Those agreements govern any potential well locations and associated facilities within the Subdivisions and other specified terms, including, but not limited to, landscaping and fencing around wells and associated production equipment. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS A true triple bottom line analysis includes an assessment of environmental, social, and economic impacts. Staff analysis to date has focused on potential and possible environmental impacts if hydraulic fracturing is allowed. Staff was unable to conclusively determine financial impacts of any health and safety hazard related to hydraulic fracturing due to the significant number of variables that relate to the hydraulic fracturing process, transportation of material and waste produced, and removal of waste materials. A social impact analysis has not yet been undertaken for this COPY COPY COPY March 19, 2013 -5- ITEM 28 discussion. It is assumed that social impacts of hydraulic fracturing are discussed and addressed in terms of concerns about health impacts, impacts to property and housing values, and quality of life. Prospect Energy indicates that without this Agreement they would no longer be able to adequately operate the Fort Collins Field or expand into other existing lease holdings currently within the city limits. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Documented in Agenda Item Summary (AIS) 26, prepared for Council Hearing February 19, 2013. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 2013-024. If adopted, staff recommends exempting Prospect Energy from the moratorium enacted by Ordinance No. 145, 2013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Fort Collins Field & UDA 3. Matrix Comparing Agreement & LUC Option B COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 2 DATE: December 4, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich Dan Weinheimer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Items Relating to Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code Pertaining to Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations (Option A or B). AND/OR B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance or Processing of Land Use Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications Seeking Approval to Conduct Oil and Gas Extraction or Related Operations Within the City of Fort Collins (Option C). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council directed staff to evaluate methods by which the City may regulate oil and gas exploration and production. Since oil and gas operations are governed primarily by the state and federal governments, staff will provide an overview of what regulations exist and where the City may be effective in both filling existing regulatory “gaps” and strengthening existing regulations in order to better protect the health and safety of residents. Discussion includes development review criteria, water and air quality, environmental protections, and emergency services. Staff also presents information on non-regulatory ways to respond to residents’ concerns including options such as surface-use and operator agreements, legislative advocacy, regional cooperation, and active participation in related state and federal rulemaking processes. Staff is providing three options for Council’s consideration: • Option A: Dual-track development review process • Option B: Single-track development review process • Option C: Moratorium BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Existing oil and gas activity in the city: Oil production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field, located in the northeast portion of the city. The Fort Collins Field is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and has been in production since about 1925. In the City limits, the field consists of seven producing wells and seven injecting wells within the City limits, all of which are managed by one operator. Four residential subdivisions have developed around the Fort Collins field, with an additional subdivision planned in the area. In addition to the Fort Collins field, well development has historically occurred southward along the I-25 corridor. There are no active wells in this area today. As all wells were subsequently annexed into City boundaries, there have been no permits issued to date in the City of Fort Collins. Two recent developments may result in significant changes in oil and gas exploration in Larimer County. The first is the successful exploration of the Niobrara formation, which lies deep under much of northeastern Colorado, and the second is the advancing technology of hydraulic fracturing to extract the resource from within deeply located shale deposits. This has raised considerable public concern. Existing regulations Because oil and gas exploration and production is regulated by the state in Colorado, local jurisdictions are limited in their ability to control the location, procedures, and impacts of oil and gas drilling in and around their boundaries. COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 26 A combination of the state’s laws and several court cases have resulted in the preemption of local control over various aspects of oil and gas activities, and the scope of that preemption is the subject of ongoing litigation.. Accordingly, existing oil and gas regulations in the Land Use Code are limited to a single paragraph in Section 3.8.14 and reads as follows: “Any use that is not permitted under the provisions of Article 4, but that must be allowed because of preemption by a sovereign jurisdiction or because of a court order, shall be processed as a Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review) and shall be approved, with or without conditions, as necessary to ensure that such use complies with all general standards as set forth in Article 3 and zone district standards as set forth in Article 4 as are or may reasonably be interpreted to be applicable to such use, provided that such standards are not preempted or ordered by a court not to be applied.” This section indicates that all oil and gas operations are subject to a Type 2, or Planning and Zoning Board review. This paragraph also suggests that oil and gas operations are subject to the standards set forth in the Land Use Code, to the extent that they are not preempted by the state. DISCUSSION - Proposed Framework for Oil and Gas Operations: As discussed above, the City has a shared authority with the state and other agencies for controlling how oil and gas operations occur both above and below ground. Typically, the City’s Land Use Code serves as the primary mechanism for land development in the City. However, because of the shared authority with the state, staff has identified a number of methods to address specific community concerns and better address oil and gas operations at local levels. Staff recommends that the City engage at the federal, state and regional levels, as well, to better affect regulations or ensure compliance with regulations. Federal The federal level options are aimed at influencing the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies to gain more stringent oversight of oil and gas operations. The EPA intends to have a new set of operating criteria for oil and gas in place in 2015 and City of Fort Collins staff intends to comment on whether those policies are implemented at a statewide or local level. Significant costs may be incurred by the City if implemented locally rather than utilizing existing statewide resources. In addition to influencing governmental agencies at the federal level, the City can also utilize federal research, programs, and services to ensure oil and gas operations both within the City’s boundaries and at a regional level do not degrade quality of life. State Colorado permits oil and gas activity through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). In addition to the COGCC, two other state agencies have a role in oversight of oil and gas operations – the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW). CDPHE’s oversight is focused upon the potential and actual impacts of oil and gas activity on human health, specifically with regards to air and water quality. The DPW, a sister agency of the COGCC under the Department of Natural Resources, has oversight of habitat and wildlife protection. The state-level options include the following opportunities for City involvement: • Engage in stakeholder processes – As with the federal level engagement opportunities, the City can participate in stakeholder processes to affect the rules at the state level that affect oil and gas operations. • Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates in the state’s review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil and gas applications at the state level. • Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to have inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within city limits. COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -3- ITEM 26 • Advocating for legislative change – The City can engage in legislative discussions to influence the state and other municipalities. Fort Collins’ Legislative Policy Agenda calls for supporting legislation to provide communities with more tools to address the industry and more power over local land use. • Designated Outside Activity Areas – This tool allows for an area, e.g., City Park, to receive the same 350- foot setback that high density areas receive. The City applies for this designation through the state on areas in the City that meet certain qualifications, e.g., a certain number of users per day or per year. Longmont has successfully received approval for two City park complexes. Regional Regional solutions include addressing some impacts of oil and gas activity collaboratively with other local governments. These collaborations include hiring a shared inspector to effectively balance the ability to inspect local wells with the number of existing wells and anticipated activity. Staff initiated conversations with several jurisdictions about sharing an inspector. The regional level also presents a partnership opportunity with other municipalities, counties, and researchers to address issues that go beyond our city borders, e.g., air quality. Intergovernmental agreements to share monitoring resources and equipment for air quality are one tool the City could explore. From a research perspective, faculty at Colorado State University is examining air emissions from well sites in Garfield County beginning in spring 2013 through fall 2015. The results of this study, funded jointly by the County and industry, are anticipated to provide a better understanding of the toxicity of well emissions. Staff met with the faculty associated with this study, as well as others at CSU who are examining air emissions and regional impacts from oil and gas operations, and will utilize the lessons learned from these research efforts to recommend changes to local regulations. Local The local solutions include at least five mechanisms to address oil and gas operations to ensure community concerns are addressed and residents’ quality of life is protected: • Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates in the state’s review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil and gas applications at the state level. • Operator Agreements – A negotiated agreement between the City and any operator wishing to conduct oil and gas operations in the City. The agreement could include additional, prescriptive requirements such as enhanced baseline and ongoing monitoring. • Intergovernmental Agreement with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to have inspection authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within city limits. It also provides opportunities for partnering with our surrounding municipalities on a regional basis for inspection authority. • Surface Use Agreements –A negotiated agreement between the landowner and any operator wishing to conduct oil and gas operations providing another mechanism to obtain enhanced conditions. • Land Use Regulations – A set of regulations and control mechanisms that are protective of public health and the environment. The Land Use Code amendments before Council include Option A (a dual-track development review process) and Option B (a single-track development review process). The regulatory options are described in greater depth below. Land Use Regulations – Review Processes Two options are presented related to Land Use Code regulations: • Option A: Dual-track development review process, which includes both an expedited and standard review process • Option B: Single-track development review process – This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review process. Under this option, all development review COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -4- ITEM 26 applications would be processed under a single review track and required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning Board. The review processes for the dual-track development review processes are outlined in Table 1 below (see Table 2 for the single-track review process). The Standard Review process requires the operator to locate a well and operate in a manner that does not degrade quality of life (e.g., adjacent land uses, natural resources, water quality, air quality, visual and scenic resources, etc.). The Standard Review process also requires operators to attend a neighborhood meeting and a hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to the Type 2 standards currently outlined in the Land Use Code. The regulations outlined in the Standard Review process however, are more goal-based than prescriptive. Alternatively, the Expedited Review process requires operators (who voluntarily choose this option) to meet specific, objective criteria prescribed in the review process. By meeting these more prescriptive standards, staff proposes that public comments only be taken in a written format and that the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services has the final decision-making authority. This dual-track review process is a model utilized by other local governments to address oil and gas development and has achieved some success in engaging operators in meeting specific objective criteria. Table 1: Option A: Dual-track review process, including the standard and expedited review processes, notice requirements, and decision-making authority. Element Standard Review Process (Type 2 Review) Expedited Review Process (Basic Development Review) Regulations Must locate a well and operate in a manner that does not degrade quality of life Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria Notice Requirements Notification sent when an application is received, prior to a neighborhood meeting and prior to the hearing Notification sent when an application is received and if an application is approved Public Comments Written comments can be provided prior to or at the public hearing Residents and affected parties can testify at the public hearing Written comments can be provided after the notification that an application has been received Decision-making authority Planning and Zoning Board approval Director approval Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all operations must be 500’ from an occupied structure, water well, Natural Area or City Park and 150’ from any property line Appeals Decisions are appealable to City Council Decisions can be appealed in District Court Table 2: Option B: Single-track review process Element Review Process Regulations Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria Notice Requirements Notification sent when an application is received, prior to a neighborhood meeting and COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -5- ITEM 26 Appeals Decisions are appealable to City Council Land Use Regulations – Proposed Standards All new oil and gas operations will be subject to the requirements in either the standard review or expedited review track, (Table 3) unless Option B is adopted by Council and then the standards in expedited review will prevail. Common areas for oil and gas operators to address in submittals include air quality, water quality, and natural resource protection. Within each area the standards differ based upon the review process. The conditions offered for standard review consist largely of plans and information about proposals for preventing or mitigating community impacts. Table 3: This table outlines the standards for air quality, water quality, natural resources standards, general standards and reciprocal setbacks associated with both the standard and expedited reviews. Regulation Option A Option B Standard Review Expedited Review Air Quality Minimize all emissions 95% VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) destruction 98% VOC destruction 98% VOC destruction Flares and combustion devices -No open flares -Automatic flame ignition system -No open flares -Automatic flame ignition system with surveillance -No open flares -Automatic flame ignition system with surveillance Pollution Prevention -Leak Detection Program Required -Air Quality Mitigation plan required - Leak Detection Program required -Reduce methane emissions during maintenance -Air Quality Mitigation plan required - Leak Detection Program required -Reduce methane emissions during maintenance Containment Must ensure no significant degradation Require Closed Loop Pitless systems Require Closed Loop Pitless systems Pneumatic Controllers Must ensure no significant degradation Use no or low bleed devices Use no or low bleed devices Electric Engines Required for pumping units and COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -6- ITEM 26 Regulation Option A Option B Standard Review Expedited Review Water Quality Water Quality Monitoring Plan Must ensure no significant degradation of water quality Baseline monitoring within ½ mile: -Sample four sites -Sample multiple aquifers -Sample up and down gradient Baseline monitoring within ½ mile: -Sample four sites -Sample multiple aquifers -Sample up and down gradient Conduct Subsequent Monitoring Must ensure no significant degradation of water quality Monitor at same locations 1, 3, and 6 years after well completion Monitor at same locations 1, 3, and 6 years after well completion Soil Gas Monitoring Must ensure no significant degradation of water quality -Monitor soil gas within 90 days of well completion -Results may trigger additional groundwater monitoring -Monitor soil gas within 90 days of well completion -Results may trigger additional groundwater monitoring Natural Resources Natural Resources Protection Must ensure no significant degradation -Must be set back 500 feet from a waterbody, stream, wetland, Natural Area or Park -Compliance with all buffer standards -Cannot qualify if within 500 feet of a waterbody, stream, wetland, Natural Area or Park COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -7- ITEM 26 Regulation Option A Option B Standard Review Expedited Review Noise Use an acoustically insulated cover to enclose the motor or engine All production equipment used shall comply with the noise levels in our Municipal Code in residential zones Reciprocal setbacks – applies to future residential development proposals in proximity of oil and gas operations Abandoned and plugged wells Setback ranges from 20-50 feet from the abandoned and plugged well, based on screening, berming, and fencing options Any oil and gas well that has not been plugged and abandoned Setback ranges from 150-250 feet from all other wells, based on screening, berming and fencing options From a safety perspective, the minimum setback should never be less than 150’ FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Adoption of the Land Use Code regulations, in either Option A or Option B will require interdisciplinary oversight in the development review process beyond the typical development review process. For example, additional staff time from representatives from Environmental Sustainability and Utilities will be required to evaluate the air and water quality elements of any proposed oil and gas operation. If Council indicates staff should continue to pursue the non-regulatory options, e.g., the Local Government Designee, Intergovernmental Agreements for inspection authority, etc., then the financial requirements from the City will increase. Funds for these efforts have been allocated through the 2013-2014 Budget (Offer 197.2 Oil and Gas Liaison). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS While the proposed Land Use Code regulations are designed to protect the City’s quality of life, sense of place, and public health, oil and gas drilling within the city still could have significant impacts on air quality and water quality, and there is also concern about the increased risk of spills and releases of hazardous materials due to an increase in use, storage and transportation of such materials. In addition, there are high volumes of truck and heavy equipment associated with oil fields. In addition to these impacts, well pads and service roads are fragmenting wildlife habitat, on a massive scale in northeastern Colorado and in other communities throughout the western United States. The City’s Natural Areas, both within and outside of the City, are threatened by this fragmentation. While there is conflicting technical information regarding air and water quality threats, there is little doubt that oil and gas drilling would negatively affect the environment in the community and does not support the City’s goals for sustainability. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff presents the following options to the Council for consideration: Option A: Dual-track development review process This option includes both expedited and standard review. • The expedited review track requires operators to meet specific, objective criteria and agree to increased setbacks, e.g., 500 feet from an occupied structure, water body, natural area, or City park and 150 feet from any property line. By electing to meet these more prescriptive standards, a public hearing and neighborhood meeting are not required. Instead, notification is provided when an application is received, and if an COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -8- ITEM 26 application is approved. Written comments can be submitted to the Director during the review process. The Director has the final decision-making authority. • The standard review track requires the operator to locate a well and operate in a manner that does not significant degrade our quality of life. All standard review applications are subject to a neighborhood meeting and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. All Board decisions are appealable to the City Council. Option B: Single-track development review process This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review process. Under this option, all development review applications would be processed under a single review track and be required to meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning Board. Option C: Moratorium Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to prevent new oil and gas operations within their jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to allow the state to address its rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality regulations. Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is currently addressing its rules by considering amendments to water sampling and monitoring as well as addressing well setbacks and noise. The City secured Party Status for both rulemaking hearings, making Fort Collins the only city with such status and providing the City with an opportunity to submit comments on the state’s proposals, recommend alternatives, and a greater length of time to speak before the Commission. The state is reviewing its existing setback rules. New rules are anticipated to be in place early in 2013. Setbacks for new wells from existing homes are an important consideration for several reasons – there is uncertainty about emissions from well sites and the process of drilling and maintaining a well site could cause noise, traffic and light impacts. The current setbacks for new wells are 150 feet from an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area and 500 feet from some structures like hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing the state setbacks from homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. The City of Fort Collins will seek additional setback distance, greater powers for residents in influencing site location proposals, and protection for community assets like natural areas and parks. Water quality is another area that the Commission is currently addressing. The proposal under consideration adopts an industry-sponsored voluntary program and makes that program mandatory. Under the program, baseline groundwater quality samples will be collected from two existing groundwater features, such as permitted and registered groundwater wells or groundwater seeps and springs, which are located within 1/2 mile of the surface location of new oil and gas well pads, or additional wells on existing well pads. These samples will be collected before drilling begins. A second sample will be collected from each groundwater feature within one to three years after drilling is completed. If the state’s rules on water quality monitoring are amended, the City may also need to modify proposed Land Use Code regulations as presented in Option A or B or in development submittal requirements. Staff also requests direction on suggested state, regional, and “other” local options, including: • Engage in stakeholder processes • Continue with Local Government Designee • Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the State for inspection authority • Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the County for the GMA • Advocate for more legislative change • Consider entering into an operator agreement with the producer of the Fort Collins Field • Develop a “model” surface use agreement that can be used for any city-owned lands COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -9- ITEM 26 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City staff presented the proposed Land Use Code regulations and associated non-regulatory options to numerous City boards and commissions. Formal recommendations were made by the Water Board (8-1), the Natural Resources Advisory Board (6-1), and the Air Quality Advisory Board (7-0) to support the Standard (Type II) and Expedited (Basic Development Review) processes and associated regulations. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted 6-0 to support the use of standard review when considering applications on City-owned Natural Areas. The Board further recommended a six month temporary moratorium on new oil and gas applications to provide staff with additional time to develop additional options. While the Air Quality Advisory Board indicated support for the Standard and Expedited review, the Board also expressed additional non-regulatory options that staff should pursue. These recommendations are included in Attachment 14. PUBLIC OUTREACH A multidisciplinary City staff team worked to develop an understanding of the oil and gas industry, community concerns related to industry practices, and the statewide regulatory processes in place. This group researched industry exploration and extraction practices, working closely with peer municipalities throughout the Front Range to identify and incorporate the best practices of other Colorado municipalities into local regulation of the industry. The research process included local focus group meetings, formation of an Oil and Gas Advisory Committee that included representatives from eight City boards and commissions, talking with state experts and meetings with Colorado State University professors and researchers, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff, and the local oil and gas operators. The Oil and Gas Advisory Committee was created to gather input from a diverse group of boards and commissions. The group met three times as public meetings and provided input to staff on draft regulations. The Committee included self-selected representatives from eight City boards and commissions, including the Air Quality Advisory Board, Economic Advisory Commission, Energy Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and Water Board. Staff conducted meetings with small groups of interested citizens. Residents of the Hearthfire subdivision met with staff and continued to communicate over the course of the project. Outreach included a focus group with representatives of local environmental groups before and after the development of draft regulations. Staff met with Don’t Frack the Fort, a group generated by mutual concern over hydraulic fracturing in the community, four times. Staff attended numerous public meetings on the subject of oil and gas development hosted by other groups. ATTACHMENTS 1. Maps associated with Oil and Gas activity 2. Council Work Session Summary, August 14, 2012 3. Matrix comparing best practices of communities 4. Oil and Gas Manual* 5. Oil and Gas Development Review Guide* 6. Advisory Group Summary 7. Letter to Larimer County 8. Public Comments 9. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 1, 2012 10. Water Board minutes, October 18, 2012 11. Water Board memo re: proposed Land Use Code regulations 12. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, October 10, 2012 13. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, November 14, 2012 COPY COPY COPY COPY December 4, 2012 -10- ITEM 26 14. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, October 17, 2012 15. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, October 15, 2012 16. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, November 19, 2012 17. Powerpoint Presentation (*NOTE: Attachment 4, Oil and Gas Manual, and Attachment 5, Oil and Gas Development Review Guide, are draft documents and only illustrate Option A, the dual-track review process. If Option B is adopted by Council, the documents will be revised accordingly.) ATTACHMENT 3 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 4 DATE: April 23, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Lindsay Ex, Dan Weinheimer Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Discussion of the Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, Inc. and the Extent to Which Prospect Energy’s Oil and Gas Operations Should Be Exempted from the Moratorium on Such Activities and the Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council is considering whether to approve on Second Reading, an Ordinance that would exempt Prospect Energy from a moratorium prohibiting new oil and gas drilling and a ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing in the drilling process. Second Reading was scheduled on April 16, 2013. After considerable discussion and public testimony, Council continued the item to April 23, 2013 to consider the issue during a work session, followed by continuation of the April 16, 2013 Adjourned Meeting. Council asked staff to provide more information regarding the inclusion of Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) in the Operator Agreement and whether Prospect Energy would remove the UDA from the Operator Agreement. Council also requested the following information: • How does the Operator Agreement apply to the UDA? • A summary of current oil and gas legislation, • A timeline of the moratorium, ban and agreement, and • Information regarding the existing Fort Collins Field, well locations and expansion plans. To be exempt from the hydraulic fracturing ban, there must be a Council-approved Operator Agreement in place. Council stipulated Operator Agreements must ensure stringent public health and safety measures are in place and provide strict controls on the release of methane gases and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Council asked that a comparison table be developed illustrating parts of the Agreement that exceed federal or state guidelines or regulation. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. How does the inclusion of the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) affect whether Council should consider exemption Prospect Energy from the moratorium and/or the hydraulic fracturing ban? Option #1: If Council considers exempting Prospect Energy on Second Reading (with the UDA) should Council act to amend the Operator Agreement to: • Include greater set-back requirements in the UDA, and • Prohibit any re-entry into plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Field? COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 2 Option #2: Should the UDA be removed from the Agreement and exemption from the moratorium and the ban limited to the Fort Collins Field? • If so, should the Agreement be amended to prohibit re-entry into plugged and abandoned wells? 2. Would Council consider moving forward Land Use Code (LUC) amendments to address reciprocal set-backs and requirement’s to identify plugged and abandoned wells prior to land development? 3. Should staff continue with general LUC development requirements now that the ban is in place and requires and Operator Agreement? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Oil and gas production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field, located in the northeast portion of the city. The Fort Collins Field is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and has been in production since 1924. Prospect Energy has been operating the field since 2009. In City limits, the field consists of seven oil producing wells and seven injecting wells, all of which are managed by one operator, Prospect Energy. Prior to May 2012 Larimer County and City regulations (LUC Section 3.8.14) reference pre-emption by the COGCC rules as the criteria for any oil and gas development within the city or county. Prospect Energy is unable to drill new wells since Ordinance No. 145, 2012 (Moratorium) was approved December 18, 2012. In addition, the company is no longer able to utilize hydraulic fracturing since the adoption of Ordinance No. 032, 2013. Prospect Energy also holds certain leasehold interests within the city, described as the UDA. Absent actions taken by Council, Prospect Energy would be able to expand operations in the Fort Collins Field and other holdings in the City and use hydraulic fracturing under the guidelines of the COGCC. In addition to Prospect Energy, there are 143 mineral royalty owners who are affected by whether Prospect Energy continues oil and gas development within the city. Council allowed for exemptions from Ordinance No. 032, 2013, provided a Council-approved operator agreement was in place that includes strict controls on methane release and adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare of the city. The recommended agreement with Prospect Energy contains such provisions. A summary of those provisions follows with more detailed information contained in Attachment 5. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL Would Prospect Energy remove the UDA from the Operator Agreement? According to representatives of Prospect Energy, the company is not willing to remove the UDA from the Operator Agreement because of the financial investment made in obtaining the lease and the potential for significant future return on investment. How does the Operator Agreement apply to the UDA? All aspects of the Operator Agreement apply in the UDA, as well as those sections written specifically for the UDA, since it is unknown what resources may be developed. Staff’s approach COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 3 was to require Best Practices for either oil or gas production be included in the operator agreement, especially for air and water quality, in the event that either resource is produced. For example, if saleable amounts of gas are produced in the UDA, they must construct a sales line rather than venting. Currently, there are no quantities of saleable gas produced in the Fort Collins Field. More specific information is contained in the Operator Agreement regarding development of the Fort Collins Field since there is a publicly available Surface Use Agreement in place with the Landowner and Prospect Energy. It is important for the community that the existing Surface Use Agreement (SUA) for the Fort Collins Field limits future development to existing well pads. There are development limits within the SUA and Prospect Energy for the UDA; at this time only general information is public. Prospect Energy proposes a one-thousand (1,000) foot set-back in the UDA along the west and southern sides of the UDA in order to increase the set-back from existing and future, potential residential development in this area. This one-thousand (1,000) foot set-back exceeds COGCC requirements and will help further mitigate any negative impacts of development beyond what the current Operator Agreement requires. Prospect Energy indicates that there are five (5) potential well pads within the UDA. Summary of current oil and gas legislation Prospect Energy would be required to follow any current oil and gas legislation that may be enacted, if it is more restrictive than what is already in the agreement or if it is required by law for them to follow and not addressed in the agreement. See Attachment 2 for more information on the specific bills. Timeline: Moratorium, Ban and Agreement & financial impacts to Prospect Energy According to representatives of Prospect Energy, the company was proceeding to sell the Fort Collins Field in May 2012 when the Council on First Reading passed a moratorium against any new oil and gas drilling. According to the company, this action resulted in a change in the regulatory environment rating moving from “stable” to “uncertain” for the Fort Collins Field and the sale subsequently failed. Prospect Energy has been unable to develop proved reserves in the Fort Collins Field since a moratorium was adopted by Council. Prospect Energy reports that this change in regulatory rating was further reduced to “unfavorable” by the adoption of a ban on hydraulic fracturing. The combination of these actions led to a “write down of proved reserves due to regulatory uncertainty by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)” during the year end third party evaluation. The write down reduces the amount of available capital that Prospect Energy would have had previous to any regulations adopted by the City. See Attachment 1. What are the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing? What opportunities are there to mitigate the environmental impacts and what (mitigation approaches) are included in the Operating Agreement? Staff provided information to Council for consideration during the February 19, 2013 meeting as follows: COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Air Quality Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were reviewed to support the following conclusions: • Measurable emissions of several pollutants attributable to drilling, construction, material storage and treatment, production, and transmission activities from oil and gas operations have been detected, including the following: N Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are ozone precursors N Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) including several carcinogens (primarily benzene and formaldehyde) and other air toxics associated with chronic and sub-chronic health effects (respiratory and neurologic disease and head, throat, and eye irritation) N Particulate matter including dust and aerosols N Odors (hydrogen sulfide and odiferous hydrocarbons) N Nitrogen and sulfur compounds that contribute to visibility impairment (haze) and atmospheric deposition N (acid rain) N Methane, a potent greenhouse gas and ozone precursor. • Oil and gas development activities can emit raw (non-combusted) natural gas which has a unique signature that can be differentiated from motor vehicle emissions and other industrial or combustion sources. Elevated levels of volatile organic compounds associated with natural gas operations (drilling and venting) were found in the Front Range area. • Hydrocarbons emitted from oil and gas activities along the Front Range (primarily propane and other alkanes) comprise some of the highly reactive precursors important in the complex atmospheric chemistry responsible for winter ozone formation. Winter ozone formation is a recently discovered phenomenon that has clearly been attributed to emissions from oil and gas development and production activities in the Green River Basin (Wyoming) and Uintah Basin (Utah). • Associated impacts to human health including excess cancer risk and chronic non-cancer health impacts have been measured at locations within 0.5 miles of active well pad sites. Additional studies, many of which are currently ongoing, will help to define the potential risk to human health, effectiveness of air emission control strategies, and potential impacts to air quality from oil and gas development activities. Water Quality Environmental and Health Concerns • While there is no scientific consensus and studies are few, there is some indication of a potential link between high-pressure underground injection (i.e., underground injection wells for wastewater) and gas migration near the well (movement of methane into groundwater.) The associated risk to humans is that methane that is found in drinking water sources could potentially build up in confined spaces and cause explosions. Methane gas is not considered COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 5 toxic if consumed in drinking water and is not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA). • A USGS study by Ellsworth near wastewater wells (Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells) in Menlo Park, CA suggests the high pressure injection might make well cement cracks more likely. Findings by other researchers suggest a similar finding, but conclude further research is needed. Although this may have implications for high pressure injection techniques used in hydraulic fracturing, there is no scientific consensus on the probability of its occurrence or the mechanisms involved. Local wells classified as UICs are actually injecting at sub-fracturing pressures; see more below under earthquakes. • Most shallow water contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing and conventional oil and gas production has been linked to surface activities resulting in releases of wastewater due to accidents, poor management of wastewater storage and disposal, and illicit dumping. • Most aquifer contamination (i.e., potential drinking water resources) from conventional oil and gas production has been linked to well casing failures. There is not enough research for hydraulic fracturing operations to show a similar link. In response to public concern and industry growth, in 2009, the US House of Representatives requested that the US EPA conduct scientific research to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The project planning phase involved agency consultation with other federal agencies, state and interstate regulatory agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, and others in the private and public sector to determine the focus of the study regarding potential impacts on human health and the environment. The primary research focused on investigating impacts to drinking water resources. The first progress report on the results of this research was published by the EPA, December 2012, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, Progress Report, EPA 601/R-12/011, Office of Research and Development. The research consists of 18 research projects and is organized around five stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle: 1. Water acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals from ground and surface waters on water resources? 2. Chemical mixing: What are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills on or near well pads on water resources? 3. Well injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on water resources? 4. Flowback and produced water: What are the possible impacts of both types of wastewater surface spills on or near well pads on water resources? 5. Wastewater treatment and waste disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on water resources? The results from the study, which are not expected until 2014, are intended to inform the public and provide policymakers at all levels with high-quality scientific knowledge that can be used in decision-making. The research involves collection and analysis of existing data from 24,925 wells that have been hydraulically fractured, complex modeling conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, toxicity assessments of 1,858 chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing, COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 6 and case studies. The EPA also manages the two most comprehensive databases on toxicological data that are used for risk assessments nationally and internationally. The literature reviews for this study are subject to a separate quality review that assesses the soundness, applicability and utility, clarity and completeness, uncertainty and variability, and evaluation and review of the data and information before inclusion in the research. Attachment 3 includes references accepted for inclusion in the EPA report that are organized by research topic related to water quality. This list is a subset of references reviewed to date that cover the most relevant research topics being investigated; for a complete list refer to the 2012 EPA report cited above. The EPA has compiled and continues to search for literature relevant to the research questions posed in this report including a recent Federal Register notice requesting peer-reviewed data and publications relevant to this study. There has not been any preliminary data released from this effort. Waste and Wastewater Environmental Concerns • Hydraulic fracturing produces higher volumes of wastewater that surface as flowback in a shorter period of time than conventional drilling techniques. This creates more challenges for capture, storage, and disposal of wastewater and associated emissions than for conventional drilling operations (e.g., more VOC emissions if not captured adequately, more potential for accidental spills). • Wastewater management and disposal may be the single most important issue associated with environmental and human health protection. The Bureau of Land Management has proposed new requirements for submission of wastewater management plans prior to drilling. Deep injections of wastes in Class II UIC wells, not fracturing operations, have been linked to earthquakes to date. Earthquake Potential in Fort Collins Water disposal in the oil field involves injecting waste water into a deep disposal well. This process usually increases pressure in the rock above the native state (pre-water disposal) of the rock. Usually there is not any fluid removed from the rock, only fluid (wastewater) added, thereby increasing reservoir pressure. Many other industries and the Federal government also use water disposal wells. There have been noted cases of water disposal wells causing seismic activity. National Academies of Science concluded a study in 2012 and listed three major findings: 1. “the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events;” 2. “injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the subsurface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation”; and 3. “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may have potential for inducing larger seismic.” The factor that appears to have the most direct consequence in regard to induced seismicity is the net fluid balance. COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 7 The Bureau of Reclamation stated it has not done any independent studies regarding hydraulic fracturing or deep injection wells. However, it did state that the work done between 1999 and 2004 on all the Horsetooth Dams was performed as mitigation for major seismicity that it defines as much greater than what research reveals is a risk due to deep injection wells. Locally, a process called waterflooding is used and, in general, operators are required to maintain pressures that are below fracture gradient and even further lower, based on the last mechanical integrity test, according to COGCC regulations. In other words, at the Fort Collins Field waterflooding (recycled water), the Muddy formation maintains pressures near or slightly below original reservoir pressures. Waterflooding started in the Fort Collins Field as a smaller pilot test in September 1979 after obtaining COGCC approval. Upon success of the pilot, COGCC approved expansion and the expanded project started in July 1985. According to the current operator, “We’ve been injecting water for a long time at fairly steady rates without any recorded seismic events.” Habitat Fragmentation Resulting From Oil and Gas Development Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were briefly reviewed to support the following conclusions: • Wildlife impacts and habitat fragmentation from oil and gas activities have been documented, largely for the Greater Yellowstone and Western Wyoming regions. Species studied include mule deer, pronghorn, and greater sage-grouse. The studies largely focused on how migration patterns and winter habitat use could be or have been affected by oil and gas development. Mule deer migration patterns changed in the initial year of oil and gas development. Migration patterns did not appear to acclimate three years after well establishment. Instead, mule deer migration patterns continued to drift further from the well pad development areas. High value habitat areas prior to the study shifted to low habitat values throughout the study. A further study found that mule deer abundance for the herds in the same area had declined by 23% during 2001-2010, where the oil and gas development had expanded. One recent study has also examined the impact of oil and gas development on sagebrush- dependent songbirds (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2012). Some species, which are generally more tolerant to disturbance, such as the Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) did not respond to increases in well densities. However other species, such as the Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) which are dependent on sagebrush communities, had significant population decreases as oil and gas well density increased, suggesting there may be significant impacts to sagebrush-obligate species. A comprehensive synthesis of oil and gas impacts was recently compiled by The Wildlife Society in 2012. In addition to the issues addressed above, the report also identifies increased noxious weed invasions, impacts to waterfowl from wetland impacts, and the potential for increased competition between deer and elk as highly valued habitat is used for oil and gas development. The report also highlights that the cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation, overall loss, and degradation may prove to have the most impact on wildlife. • Horizontal drilling may reduce the overall impacts of habitat fragmentation, as multiple areas of land can be accessed from a single well pad. However, it is difficult to know the extent of this reduction without further study. COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 8 • Based on the studies available, habitat fragmentation effects from oil and gas development appear to be better understood at the landscape level, e.g., how oil and gas development affects pronghorn and mule deer migration patterns. Thus, the findings from these studies may be best applied at the regional scale, e.g.,Larimer County and the Rocky Mountain Foothills. • Staff did not find any research that compared the habitat fragmentation effects of oil and gas development in rural or open undeveloped lands with those in more traditional urban development. Mitigation measures are proposed by staff and included in the Operator Agreement – see Attachment 3 for some of the measures included specific to hydraulic fracturing. Another significant measure is a requirement in the Agreement that the Operator must have twenty-four (24) hour supervision on site for any new drilling. Information regarding the existing Fort Collins Field, well locations and expansion plans Level of oversight: Since 2009, the COGCC inspected the Fort Collins Field at least 142 times. There are no known safety concerns with existing wells. Existing wells would continue to have oversight by the COGCC. Any new wells must conform to all COGCC regulations in addition to any Best Management Practices contained in the Operator Agreement. Count of pads and wellheads in the existing field: There are currently fifteen (15) wells in the City limits; seven (7) of those produce oil, the remaining are water re-injection wells. It is not certain which wells pads will be regulated by the Agreement or which will remain as “existing” (see Attachment 6 for possible locations). Prospect Energy has indicated which well pads are likely to be added to, however a proposed new development may affect any new well locations. It is estimated that two (2) or three (3) well pads may be used for new wells and the remaining four (4) or five (5) would remain as is. An additional six (6) to eight (8) additional wells are possible in City limits of the Fort Collins Field. Why can’t the Best Management Practices listed in the Agreement be applied to all wells in the City? Generally, new requirements apply to new development so the proposed agreement limited any new conditions and/or requirements to any new development. What is the difference between the existing field and the UDA? The primary difference is that the existing field has been in oil production since 1924 and while exploration has occurred in the UDA, neither oil or gas production has followed. There is however, current production both east and west of the UDA so there is some likelihood of either oil or gas resources (or both) being present. Another key difference is that any development in the UDA must occur under City jurisdiction rather than County since the UDA is already in the City. All development in the existing field was annexed into the City. COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 9 Will the Operator voluntarily provide sniffers to neighbors of the well sites so they can monitor air quality? Providing sniffers to neighbors could provide numerous benefits to nearby neighbors, such as early detection of hydrogen sulfide and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). As health concerns are more often related to VOCs, it may be best to focus on early detection of VOCs. However, monitoring and measuring VOCs require more technically rigorous protocols. For example, citizens would need to be trained in the equipment, a standard methodology would need to be established, ideally citizen “teams” would be established so quality assurance would increase, and re-training on at least an annual basis would be recommended. This type of Citizen Science effort may lend itself to be better managed by the City or by the Larimer County Department of Health, which could better manage the data over a longer time period. Because of the required rigor associated with monitoring VOCs, it may prove a liability for the Operator to manage. Staff is not aware of a case where an operator has wanted to take on such liability. Comparison table illustrating parts of the Agreement that exceed Federal or State guidelines or regulation Staff focused on key air and water quality measures contained in the Operator Agreement for illustration purposes as to how they meet or exceed State and Federal regulations or guidelines. The commitment to provide a minimum of a one-thousand (1,000) foot set-back along the south and western boundaries of the UDA exceeds existing state set-back regulations. Prospect Energy has previously described their operations as exceeding current state or federal regulations by installing a thermal oxidizer, disclosing chemicals, conducting neighborhood meetings, installing vapor recover, using camera technology for leak detection, conducting an hydrogen sulfide survey of operations which led to a wet-land being the source of odors rather than the company. All technical staff members were asked to confirm that the areas proposed by their respective disciplines met or exceeded current regulatory guidelines. See Attachment 3. If Federal or State regulations are less than what is required in the Agreement, which prevails? The Operator agreement specifies that whatever measure is “more stringent” (Appendix A, #1) is what applies, so if the Agreement is more stringent it applies. If the City and Larimer County agree that any oil and gas development in the Growth Management Area requires annexation to the City, will the terms and conditions of the Agreement apply to those areas? Yes. Language contained in Section #3 of the Agreement requires that, at such time, if at all, the City and County enter into a written agreement that authorized the City to regulate,” such operations will be governed by the Agreement. COPY COPY COPY April 23, 2013 Page 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. Project timeline 2. Current Legislation 3. Comparison Table Operator Agreement BMPs vs. Federal & State 4. Powerpoint Presentation 5. March 19, 2013 Agenda Item Summary - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Prospect Energy, w/o attachments 6. Prospect Energy’s Fort Collins Field Well locations 7. Comparison Table Operator Agreement BMPs vs. COGCC. ATTACHMENT 5 UDA Outline With Setbacks Setback Boundary 1,000’ setback from lease line A B A 1,500’ setback from lease line B 1,000’ setback from Building Unit C C ATTACHMENT 6 (OPTION 3) 1 Second Reading Ordinance No. 57 Laurie Kadrich Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dan Weinheimer Policy and Project Manager Lindsay Ex Senior Environmental Planner May 21, 2013 Council Hearing ATTACHMENT 7 2 Items for City Council Consideration: • Should City Council Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57 removing Prospect Energy from a Moratorium against any new drilling and allowing them to use hydraulic fracturing in operations? – If so, should the Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy be amended? – If amended, should Option 1, 2, or 3 be adopted? 3 Fort Collins Field & Neighborhoods 4 Brief Timeline • Operator Agreement approved 3-19-13 • Ordinance No. 57 First Reading approved 3-19-13 • Second Reading Ordinance No. 57 – Scheduled 4-16-13 – Continued to 4-23-13 • Council Work Session 4-23-13 and Second Reading Ordinance No. 57 continued to 5-21-13 • All Q & A available on web-site 5-7-13; including past Service Area Requests (SARs) • Community Information Meeting 5-8-13 5 Operator Agreement • Listed as an local control option for Oil & Gas during moratorium/LUC discussions • First draft submitted 2-7-13 by Prospect Energy – No UDA included; Erie model • First meeting to negotiate 3-1-13 • Second draft submitted 3-6-13 – Included the UDA – Contained LUC Option B elements • Operator Agreement adopted 3-19-13 6 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 1: • If Council considers exempting Prospect Energy on Second Reading should Council: – Act to amend the Operator Agreement to include greater set-back requirements in the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA), and – Prohibit any re-entry into the plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Field? 7 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 1: • Response from Prospect Energy: – Prospect Energy Agrees to Option #1 –Timeframe: • Available until August 1, 2013 8 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 2: • Should the UDA be removed from the Agreement and exemption from the moratorium and ban limited to the Fort Collins Field? – If so, should the Agreement be amended to prohibit re- entry into plugged and abandoned wells? 9 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 2: • Response from Prospect Energy: – Prospect Energy will not enter into an amended agreement including only the Fort Collins Field. – While Council approved the Agreement on 3-19-13 it does not become effective until Prospect Energy is removed from the moratorium and the ban. 10 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 3: • If Council considers exempting Prospect Energy on Second Reading should Council: – Act to amend the Operator Agreement to include greater set-back requirements in the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) - Exhibit C, – Prohibit any re-entry into the plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Field? – Add certain BMP’s to existing wells in the Fort Collins Field (City-limits), – Increase insurance during any UDA drilling 11 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 3: • Response from Prospect Energy: – Prospect Energy is willing to agree to Option 3 if it is approved tonight otherwise they have indicated they will withdraw the option from consideration. 12 Options for City Council Consideration: Option 3: • Includes amendments in Option #1 plus – Certain BMPs apply to existing field – Increased Insurance during drilling in the UDA – Increased Set-backs described in Exhibit C • Increases to 1500’ along future school area • Eliminates 1000’ set-backs in Option 1 in undeveloped areas and reverts back to COGCC Rules; 500’ residential 13 UDA Outline With Set Backs: Option #3- Exhibit C A B C A = 1,000’ setback from lease line B= 1,500’ setback from lease line C= 1,000 setback from Building unit 14 Other Items from City Council Consideration Work Session 4-23-13 • Would Council consider moving forward with Land Use Code (LUC) amendments to address reciprocal set-backs and requirements to identify plugged and abandoned wells prior to development? • Should staff continue with LUC development regulations now that the ban is in place? 15 Items for City Council Consideration: • Should City Council Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 57 removing Prospect Energy from a Moratorium against any new drilling and allowing them to use hydraulic fracturing in operations? – If so, should the Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy be amended? – If amended, should Option 1, 2, or 3 be adopted? 16 • Option 1 Summary of Options – Applies UDA and Fort Collins Field – Adds no drilling in P & A in Fort Collins Field – Adds 1000’ set-backs in UDA (South/West) & COGCC rules apply early • Option 2 – Removes UDA – Adds no drilling in P & A in Fort Collins Field • Option 3 – Applies UDA and Fort Collins Field – Adds increased insurance and set-backs – No drilling P & A wells – Certain BMPs apply to existing wells – Early COGCC rules 17 Items for City Council Consideration: • Would Council consider moving forward with Land Use Code (LUC) amendments to address reciprocal set-backs and requirements to identify plugged and abandoned wells prior to development? • Should staff continue with LUC development regulations now that the ban is in place? ATTACHMENT 8 *Item #11 – Anchoring – Did not agree to identify guy lines with bright colors, 4’ in height, and no more than 1’ east of the guy line anchor. **Item #15 – Color – Only applies to existing wells when wells are repainted for general maintenance purposes. ***Item #21 – Air Quality – Agreed to subsections (j) Ongoing Air Quality Monitoring, and (k) air quality monitoring in response to complaints or emergencies. 1 Oil and Gas Option 3: Additional Elements agreed to, not agreed to, or would not apply to Existing Wells How this Matrix is Organized: This matrix compares the proposed Operator Agreeement, Option #3, with the Operator Agreement approved by Council 3‐19‐13. The first column includes the additional regulations agreed to for existing wells. The second column includes the elements of the Operator Agreement not agreed to for existing wells, and the thrid column illustrates what elements of the Operator Agreement apply only to New Wells, and conversely, do not apply to existing wells. Additional Elements Agreed to in Option 3 Elements not Agreed to in Option 3 Would not apply to Existing Wells (Only applies to New Wells) Item #8 – Inspections Item #9 – Containment Berms Item #1 – Regulations Item #11 – Anchoring (in part*) Item #14 – Chemical disclosure (disclosure already required by the COGCC) Item #2 – Setbacks Item #12 – Burning Item #22 – Green completions Item #3 – Conceptual Review Item #13 – Chains Item #24 – Fencing Item #4 – Mailed Notice Item #15 – Color (in part**) Item #27 – Water Quality Item #5 – Posted Notice Item #18 – Dust Suppression Item #28 – Landscaping Item #6 – Neighborhood Meeting Item #19 – Electric Equipment Item #34 – Pipelines Item #7 – Commencement of Operations Item #20 – Emergency Preparedness Plan Item #40 – Spills Item #10 – Closed loop or pitless systems Item #21 – Air Quality (in part***) Item #16 – Cultural and Historical Resource Protection Item #23 – Exhaust Item #17 – Discharge valves Item #25 – Flammable Material Item #26 – Floodplains Item #29 – Lighting Item #32 – Natural Resources Item #30 – Maintenance of machinery Item #33 – Noise Item #31 – Mud tracking Item #35 – Recordation of flowlines Item #37 – Removal of debris Item #36 – Recreational Activity Standards Item #38 – Removal of equipment Item #39 – Soil gas monitoring Item #41 – Stormwater control plan Item #44 – Transportation and circulation Item #42 – Temporary access roads Item #48 – Bonds and securities Item #43 – Trailers Item #45 – Wastewater and waste management Item #46 – Water Supply Item #47 – Weed Control 22/48 elements agreed to in whole or in part 8/48 elements not agreed to 18/48 only apply to new wells OPTION 1 ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2012 WITH RESPECT TO OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC, AND EXEMPTING SUCH OPERATIONS FROM THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 12-135 OF THE CITY CODE WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 145, 2012, the City Council established a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of land use applications, permit applications and other applications seeking approval to conduct oil and gas extraction or related operations within the City (the Moratorium”); and WHEREAS, Section 12-135 of the City Code prohibits hydraulic fracturing and open pit storage in the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013-024 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council has approved an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013; that applies to all existing and future operations in the areas that are the subject of the Agreement, and by Resolution 2013-036 the City Council has adopted certain amendments thereto (the “Amended Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the oil and gas operations of Prospect Energy, LLC should be exempted from the Moratorium and the prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code as long as such operations are conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of saidthe Amended aAgreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 is hereby terminated with respect to all oil and gas operations conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of that certain Oil and Gas Operatorthe Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013. Section 2. The prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code shall not apply to oil and gas operations conducted by Prospect Energy, LLC that are governed by the Amended Agreement as long as Prospect Energy, LLC conducts itssuch operations in conformance with the terms and conditions of that certain Oil and Gas Operatorthe Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC, dated March 19, 2013, and provided further OPTION 1 Section 3. That in the event that a conflict exists between the provisions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code and the provisions of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall control. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk OPTION 1 RESOLUTION 2013-036 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC WHEREAS, Prospect Energy, LLC (“Prospect”) is engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration and extraction in the City and operates existing wells in an area known as the “Fort Collins Field,” which area is shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Prospect has leased certain additional lands in the City for the purpose of expanding its operations, which lands are shown on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and referenced as the Undeveloped Area or “UDA”; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-024, approving an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City and Prospect, which Agreement has been fully executed by both parties; and WHEREAS, the Agreement governs any new wells spudded by Prospect during the term of the Agreement that are located within the Fort Collins Field or the UDA, as well as any production facilities directly associated with such new wells; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to authorize Prospect to conduct its operations on such lands, notwithstanding a moratorium that has been imposed by the City on oil and gas operations through the enactment of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, and to utilize hydraulic fracturing during the course of its operations, notwithstanding a ban imposed on such activity through the enactment of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, as long as such operations are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Agreement should be amended to clarify that: (1) Prospect, in the course of its operations, will not re-enter any plugged or abandoned wells within the area of its operation; (2) any new wells drilledall exploration and drilling activities conducted by Prospect under the Agreement must, as of the effective date of the Agreement, comply with the new rules of the COGCC, which will officially take effect on August 1, 2013; and(3) along the west and southern boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot setback shall be required from any residential area in accordance with COGCC standards of measurement; and (34) the Amended Agreement must be executed by both parties on or before May 1June 15, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a proposed amended Agreement between the City and Prospect to the City Council for its consideration that makes the foregoing changes (the “Amended Agreement”); and OPTION 1 WHEREAS, the Amended Agreement continues to contain strict controls on methane release and adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the approval and execution of the Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Amended Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “AC,” is hereby determined by the City Council to include strict controls on methane release and to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City, and is hereby approved. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Amended Agreement on substantially the same terms and conditions as shown on Exhibit “AC,” subject to such minor modifications in form or substance 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 Ordinance. Section 3. That the Amended Agreement may only be further amended by the City Council by resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk OPTION 1 1 AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT THIS OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ___________, 2013 , by and through Prospect Energy, LLC, whose address is 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710, Denver, CO 80202 (referred to hereinafter as the “Company”), and The City of Fort Collins (referred to hereinafter as the “City”) with an address of 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80522, which may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, or individually as a “Party”. WHEREAS, the Company and its affiliates, namely, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC (“BDM”), the parent of the Company, engage in the exploration, development, production and marketing of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids in the Rocky Mountains, including the State of Colorado. The Company currently operates the Fort Collins Field (the “Field”) located in Larimer County, with certain portions of the Field located within the City, as depicted in Exhibit A, and, as such, is the only operator with active oil and gas operations within the City. The Company through its parent BDM, also holds certain leasehold interests within the City described as the Undeveloped Area (the “UDA”), as depicted in Exhibit B. WHEREAS, the Field was discovered in 1924, and has continually produced oil and associated hydrocarbons to this day. As is common with other older, once remote, oil and gas developments around the state, urban growth and subsequent annexation of certain lands by the City have encroached upon the Field. These annexations, including the Richard’s Lake subdivision (developed in the late 1990’s) and the Hearthfire subdivision (developed in the mid 2000’s), have allowed developers to place residential areas in the vicinity of active oil and gas operations. Some property lines are now within 150 feet of oil wells constructed on then-rural well pads. WHEREAS, the Field is an oil producing field unitized for waterflood operations from the Muddy Sandstone Formation (which yields the majority of the Field’s production), but the Field also produces oil from the Niobrara, Codell, Dakota, and Lyons Formations, all of which may need future development. WHEREAS, recent engineering and geological analysis indicates that certain parts of the Field may yield substantial incremental resource recovery by expanding the secondary recovery waterflood project by drilling and hydraulic fracturing new wells drilled from lands currently called Waters Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions (the “Subdivisions”). The Company is presently studying the UDA to assess whether it would support the development of mineral resources. WHEREAS, in the Field and UDA, the Company has entered into Surface Use Agreements with the surface owners, dated December 19, 1988, as amended April 19, 2001, and EXHIBIT C OPTION 1 2 March 17, 2011, respectively, which expressly govern the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Subdivisions, and other specified terms, including, but not limited to, landscaping and fencing around wells and associated production equipment. WHEREAS, the City and the Company value a balanced approach to oil and gas development that is protective of public health, safety and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources. To that end, in order to achieve those goals in a cooperative manner, the City and the Company enter into this Agreement to identify best management practices (“BMPs”) for the Company’s future drilling operations within the City’s boundaries. WHEREAS, the Field extends beyond the City limits and the Company, as a responsible oil and gas operator, has installed a vapor recovery unit at its existing production facility located just south of Douglas Road (the “Fort Collins Tank Battery”) as shown in the Exhibit A attached hereto which lies outside of the City limits. All water, oil and gas produced from any New Well, as defined herein, and located in the Field, will flow into existing or future pipelines to the Fort Collins Tank Battery where gas will be captured and sent to the thermal oxidizer for destruction. Equipment, both at the Fort Collins Tank Battery and within City limits, will capture and destroy at least 98% of any methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC). WHEREAS, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, C.R.S. §34-60-101 et. seq. (the “Act”), authorizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC” or “Commission”) to adopt statewide rules and regulations, which the Commission has done. Further, the Commission continues to consider changes to the rules and regulations. WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, by the adoption of Ordinance 145, 2012, the City Council imposed a temporary moratorium until July 31, 2013 on the acceptance, processing and approval of any land use applications relating to new oil and gas development (the “Moratorium”). WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, the City Council enacted Sec. 12-135 of the City Code prohibiting the use of hydraulic fracturing in the City, as well as the storage in open pits of solid or liquid wastes and /or flowback (the “Ban”) and, through the enactment of City Code Sec. 12-136, exempted from the Ban any oil or gas wells or pad sites existing within the City as of February 19, 2013, that become the subject of an operator agreement between the operator of the same and the City, as long as such agreement includes strict controls on methane release and, in the judgment of the City Council, adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. OPTION 1 3 WHEREAS, by Resolution ______, the City Council has approved this Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with the Company, and the Parties agree to the terms and conditions contained below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, including in the recitals, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Effective Date. When this Agreement is presented to the City Council for its consideration, City staff will also present to the City Council an ordinance exempting all Company operations within the areas described in Exhibits “A” and “B” from the Moratorium and the Ban, which exemption will continue in effect as long as the Company’s operations are conducted in accordance with this Agreement. The Effective Date of such ordinance shall be the “Effective Date” of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be void and of no effect as of August May 1June 15, 2013, unless this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties on or before such date such ordinance has been approved by the City Council and has taken effect on or before said date. 2. The Company’s Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) within City Limits. The Company shall include the BMPs listed in Appendix A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, submitted to the Commission for a ”New Well”. For the purposes of this provision, “New Well” shall mean any Company-operated well spudded during the term of this Agreement, and located on either a currently existing well pad or a New Well pad that is located within the City limits, and a “New Well Pad” shall mean any area that is directly disturbed during the drilling and subsequent operation of a New Well, including any production facilities directly associated with such well, and its associated Well Pad, insofar as it covers lands located in the City limits. The BMPs shall apply to all New Wells drilled by the Company while this Agreement is effective. The Company shall not drill on any plugged and abandoned well pad sites. For the purposes of this Agreement, a New Well shall not include the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well; accordingly, the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well is not allowed. 3. City Regulatory Approvals. The Company shall not be required to obtain any project development plan or final plan approval from the City to conduct its oil and gas operations within the City limits, as long as the Company complies with the terms and conditions contained herein, and this Agreement shall control all oil and gas operations conducted by the Company within the City limits. Prior to the submission of a COGCC Form 2 and/or Form 2A to the COGCC, the Company shall meet with the City to review the proposed oil and gas operation to ensure compliance with this Agreement, all applicable state and federal regulations, and any site- specific concerns, which concerns may include overall project impacts and economically and technically feasible mitigation measures or BMPs related to field design and infrastructure OPTION 1 4 construction to minimize potential adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare. At such time, if at all, that the City and Larimer County, Colorado (the “County”) enter into a written agreement that authorizes the City to regulate the oil and gas operations of the Company within the Growth Management Area, such operations shall thereafter be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall be subject to the City’s regulatory authority as provided in this Agreement. “Growth Management Area” shall be as described in that certain Intergovernmental Agreement entered into by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County on June 24,2008, nunc pro func [sic] October 17, 2006. 4. Operations on Existing Facilities. For any Facility owned by the Company and existing prior to the Effective Date and located within the City limits, the Parties hereby agree that the Company may perform routine maintenance operations on said Facility and perform such operations the Company deems prudent and necessary, including, but not limited to, stimulating existing wells through hydraulic fracturing and temporarily storing chemicals on existing well pads for that purpose. The Company agrees to conduct such operations as a prudent operator in accordance with the rules and regulation of the COGCC; however, the Company shall not be subject to the BMP’s as attached hereto, except for Appendix A paragraphs 201(j) and 201(k) thereof. “Facility” as used in this provision shall include wells, pipelines, and all equipment necessary and appurtenant to such wells and pipelines. 5. Term. This Agreement is effective upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the Effective Date, at which time the Agreement shall be automatically renewed and extended for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until either Party elects to terminate the Agreement at the end of the then current five (5) year term by providing written notice of such intent to the other party at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of said term. 6. Force Majeure. Neither Party will be liable for any delay or failure in performing under this Agreement in the event and to the extent that the delay or failure arises out of causes beyond a Party’s reasonable control, including, without limitation, war, civil commotion, act of God, strike or other stoppage (whether partial or total) of labor, or any law, decree, regulation, or order of any government or governmental body (including any court or tribunal). 7. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each Party represents that the undersigned have the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind the Parties to the terms and conditions contained herein. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument executed by both Parties hereto. 8. Successors and Assigns. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and extend to the City and the Company, and the Company’s successors and assigns. OPTION 1 5 9. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except for the rights of enforcement by the Commission with respect to the BMPs, this Agreement is not intended to, and does not create, any right, benefit, responsibility or obligation that may be enforced by any non-party. Additionally, nothing in the Agreement shall entitle any third party to any claims, rights or remedies of any kind. 10. Notices. All notices and other correspondence related to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by: (i) certified mail with return receipt, (ii) hand delivery with signature or delivery receipt provided by a third party courier service (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.), (iii) fax transmission if verification of receipt is obtained, or (iv) email with return receipt, to the designated representative of the Party as indicated below. A Party may change its designated representative for notice purposes at any time by written notice to the other Party. The initial representatives of the Parties are as follows: 11. City: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attn: City Manager Telephone: 970-416-2253 Fax: 970-224-6107 Email: datteberry@fcgov.com Company: Prospect Energy, LLC 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Scott D. Hall, Manager Telephone: 303-973-3228, ext. 223 Fax: 303-346-4893 Email: sdhall@bdminerals.com 12. Default; Remedies. If either party believes that the other Party has failed to comply with any provision of this Agreement, or if any other kind of dispute arises under any provision of this Agreement that cannot be resolved by good faith negotiation between the Parties, the Party claiming that a breach of this Agreement has occurred or seeking resolution of any other dispute under this Agreement shall send written notice to the other Party, specifying its position in the matter and invoking the dispute resolution process in this section. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of delivery of such notice, the Parties shall meet to resolve the matter described in the notice. If either Party believes that mediation would be advantageous in connection with such meeting, or if a resolution of the matter cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to make a reasonable effort to work through and with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if either Party believes that the dispute will OPTION 1 6 not otherwise be resolved in a sufficiently prompt and effective manner, such Party may, at its discretion, take such legal action and seek such legal or equitable remedies as it determines to be appropriate or necessary to protect and enforce its rights under this Agreement. Such remedies may include, without limitation, an injunction to stop an alleged violation or an order requiring the performance of all acts and things required to be performed hereunder by the other Party. 13. Integration Clause: This Agreement, along with all exhibits and appendices attached hereto encompasses the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the Parties, whether oral or written. 14. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado without reference to its conflicts of laws provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized representative on the day and year first written above. THE CITY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION By: _____________________________________ Darin Atteberry, City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Deputy City Attorney THE COMPANY: PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC By (signature): _________________________________________ Scott Hall, CEO OPTION 1 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Map of the Fort Collins Field and City boundaries Exhibit B - Map of the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) and City Boundaries Appendix A – List of BMP’s Appendix B – Submittal Requirements OPTION 1 8 APPENDIX A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINS Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Company shall include the best management practices listed below on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, (for New Well Pads only), submitted to the Commission for New Wells the Company drills after the Effective Date within the city limits of Fort Collins. 1. Regulations. The Company shall comply with all applicable state, and federal regulations in addition to the terms of this agreement and the Best Management Practices included below. For aAny exploration or drilling activity conducted by the Company must comply with the revised rules adopted by the COGCC on January 9, 2013, even though such rules will not officially take effect until August 1, 2013.; provided, however, that along the south and west boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot setback from residential areas shall be required. Whichever regulation is most stringent shall apply. 2. Setbacks for New Wells. It is the intent of the Company to maximize equipment and wellhead setbacks from occupied buildings and residences beyond the setbacks required by the COGCC to the extent feasible and practicable. The Parties recognize that a portion of the Field is within the Fort Collins City Limits and as such, development has occurred within the already established Field. The surface owner has obtained permitted plats for residential areas in the vicinity of existing oil and gas activities, including a constructed city park and contemplated building units and public roads within three hundred fifty (350) feet of an existing well. Further, the Parties acknowledge that the Commission rules require a minimum of five hundred (500) feet safety setback for New Well construction from a building unit and one thousand feet (1,000) from a high occupancy building. Any New Wells drilled shall conform to the Commission setback rules then in effect. In the Fort Collins Field, New Wells shall be constructed on existing Well Pads, which due to previous setback requirements, and City approval of residential development, do not conform to five hundred (500) feet setbacks, and are given an exemption from the Commission in the Rules now in effect. The Parties recognize the existence of a Surface Use Agreement (the “SUA”) between the Company and the surface owner which expressly governs the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Water’s Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions OPTION 1 9 (the “Subdivisions”), and that certain terms found in the SUA may affect Commission setbacks and other Commission rules. 3. Conceptual Review. No less than thirty (30) days prior to the submission of an Application for a Permit to Drill, the Company agrees to schedule a meeting with the City to review the proposed new well or drilling activity. The goal of this meeting shall be for staff and the applicant to review the proposed oil and gas operation in a manner that ensures compliance with the operator agreement and applicable state and federal regulations. This pre-submittal meeting shall also allow the applicant and staff to explore site-specific concerns, to discuss project impacts and potential mitigation methods including field design and infrastructure construction to minimize impacts, to discuss coordination of field design with other existing or potential development and operators, to identify sampling and monitoring plans for air and water quality, and other elements of the operator agreement as contained in Appendices A and B. Based upon the foregoing, applicants are encouraged to conduct the pre-submittal meeting with the City prior to completing well siting decisions, to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail notice of the pending Application for a Permit to Drill no more than ten (10) days after the conceptual review meeting has taken place. The Company shall reimburse the City for the costs of the mailing. Owners of record shall be ascertained according to the records of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, unless more current information is made available in writing to the City prior to the mailing of the notices. Notice of the pending application shall include reference to the neighborhood meeting, if applicable, and be made as follows: ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within five hundred (500) feet of a proposed gathering line; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within two thousand six hundred forty (2,640) feet of the parcel on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; and ⼀ To persons registered in writing with the City as representing bona fide neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowners' associations within the area of notification. 5. Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign, giving notice to the general public of the proposed development. For parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6(D) of the City’s Land Use Code. Such signs shall be provided by the City and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations OPTION 1 10 reasonably calculated by the City to afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within ten (10) days following the Conceptual Review meeting. 6. Neighborhood Meetings. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any New Well, even on existing Well Pads, that requires an Application for a Permit to Drill. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 above. The Company shall attend the neighborhood meeting. The City shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the neighborhood meeting and shall hold the meeting in the vicinity of the proposed development. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting shall be prepared by the City. The written summary shall be included in the Local Government Designee (LGD) comments provided to the COGCC at the time of the public hearing or permit review to consider the Application for a Permit to Drill. 7. Notification to the City and the public regarding commencement of operations. Prior to the commencement of any new drilling operations, the Company shall provide to the City Manager for posting on the website the information outlined in Appendix B regarding commencement of operations, which the Company may revise from time-to-time during operations, with prior approval from the City. 8. Inspections. The City shall have the right to inspect the Company’s operations and its sites during business hours, upon the giving of twenty-four (24) hour advance written notice to the Company. 9. Containment berms. The Company shall utilize steel-rim berms around tanks and separators at new Well Pads. All berms and containment devices shall be inspected at regular intervals and maintained in good condition. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment area encloses a fired vessel. Refer to American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices, API RP - D16. a) Containment berms shall be constructed of steel rings, designed and installed to prevent leakage and resist degradation from erosion or routine operation. b) Secondary containment for tanks shall be constructed with a synthetic or engineered liner that contains all primary containment vessels and flowlines and is mechanically connected to the steel ring to prevent leakage. c) For locations within five hundred (500) feet and upgradient of a surface water body, tertiary containment, such as an earthen berm, is required around production facilities. 10. Closed Loop Pitless Systems for the Containment and/or Recycling of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Wells shall be drilled, completed and operated using closed loop OPTION 1 11 pitless systems for containment and/or recycling of all drilling, completion, flowback and produced fluids. 11. Anchoring. All equipment at drilling and production sites shall be anchored to the extent necessary to resist flotation, collapse, lateral movement, or subsidence. All guy line anchors left buried for future use shall be identified by a marker of bright color not less than four (4) feet in height and not greater than one (1) foot east of the guy line anchor. 12. Burning. No open burning shall occur on the site of any oil and gas operation. 13. Chains. Traction chains from heavy equipment shall be removed before entering a City street. 14. Chemical disclosure and storage. The City shall be provided, in table format, the name, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, volume, storage, containment and disposal method for all drilling and completion chemicals (solids, fluids, and gases) used on the Well Pad. Fracture chemicals shall be uploaded onto the Frac Focus website. The Company shall not permanently store hydraulic fracturing chemicals, flowback from hydraulic fracturing, or produced water in the City limits. 15. Color. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non-contrasting, non- reflective color, to blend with the surrounding landscape and, with colors that match the land rather than the sky. The color should be slightly darker than the surrounding landscape. 16. Cultural and Historical Resource Protection. If a significant surface or sub-surface archaeological site is discovered during construction, the Company shall be responsible for immediately contacting the City to report the discovery. If any disturbance of the resource occurs, the Company shall be responsible for mitigating the disturbance to the cultural or historical property through a data recovery plan approved by the City. 17. Discharge valves. Open-ended discharge valves on all storage tanks, pipelines and other containers shall be secured where the operation site is unattended or is accessible to the general public. Open-ended discharge valves shall be placed within the interior of the tank secondary containment. 18. Dust suppression. Dust associated with on-site activities and traffic on access roads shall be minimized throughout construction, drilling and operational activities such that there are no visible dust emissions from access roads or the site to the extent practical given wind conditions. No produced water or other process fluids shall be used for dust suppression. The Company will avoid dust suppression activities within three hundred (300) feet of the ordinary high water mark of any waterbody, unless the dust suppressant OPTION 1 12 is water. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for any chemical based dust suppressant shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to use. 19. Electric equipment. Electric-powered engines for motors, compressors, and drilling equipment and for pumping systems shall be used in order to mitigate noise and to reduce emissions when feasible. 20. Emergency preparedness plan. The Company is required to develop an emergency preparedness plan for each specific facility site, which shall be in compliance with the International Fire Code. The plan shall be filed with the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins Office of Emergency Management and updated on an annual basis or as conditions change (responsible field personnel change, ownership changes, etc.). The emergency preparedness plan shall consist of at least the following information: a) Name, address and phone number, including twenty-four (24)-hour emergency numbers for at least two persons responsible for emergency field operations. b) An as-built facilities map in a format suitable for input into the City’s GIS system depicting the locations and type of above and below ground facilities including sizes, and depths below grade of all oil and gas gathering and transmission lines and associated equipment, isolation valves, surface operations and their functions, as well as transportation routes to and from exploration and development sites, for emergency response and management purposes. The information concerning pipelines and isolation valves shall be held confidentially by the City's Office of Emergency Management and the Battalion Chief, and shall only be disclosed in the event of an emergency or to emergency responders. The City shall deny the right of inspection of the as-built facilities maps to the public or for the training of emergency responders pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-72-204. c) Detailed information addressing each reasonable potential emergency that may be associated with the operation. This may include any or all of the following: explosions, fires, gas, oil or water pipeline leaks or ruptures, hydrogen sulfide or other toxic gas emissions, or hazardous material vehicle accidents or spills. A provision that any spill outside of the containment area, that has the potential to leave the facility or to threaten waters of the state, or as required by the City- approved Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be reported to the local emergency dispatch and the COGCC Director in accordance with COGCC regulations. d) Detailed information identifying access or evacuation routes, and health care facilities anticipated to be used. OPTION 1 13 e) A project specific emergency preparedness plan for any project that involves drilling or penetrating through known zones of hydrogen sulfide gas. f) Detailed information showing that the Company has adequate personnel, supplies, and training to implement the emergency response plan immediately at all times during construction and operations. g) The Company shall have current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals used or stored on a site. The MSDS sheets shall be provided immediately upon request to City officials, a public safety officer, or a health professional. h) The plan shall include a provision establishing a process by which the Company engages with the surrounding neighbors to educate them on the risks of the on-site operations and to establish a process for surrounding neighbors to communicate with the Company. i) All training associated with the Emergency Preparedness plan shall be coordinated with the City’s Office of Emergency Management and Poudre Fire Authority. j) A provision obligating the Company to reimburse the appropriate emergency response service providers for costs incurred in connection with any emergency in accordance with Colorado State Statutes. 21. Air quality. The Company must comply with emissions regulations governed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). Air emissions from wells shall be in compliance with the permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Section 7, C.R.S., COGCC Rule 805, and all state and federal regulations for the control of fugitive dust, and control of ozone, ozone precursors, methane, and hazardous air pollutants by the Larimer County Public Health Department, and the CDPHE-APCD. The Company must comply with 40 CFR Subpart OOOO as published on August 16, 2012 (Quad O). a) General Duty to Minimize Emissions. The Company shall incorporate in the development plan; operations, procedures, and field design features to the maximum extent feasible that minimize air pollutant emissions including but not limited to: 1) Consolidation of product treatment and storage facilities 2) Centralization of compression facilities OPTION 1 14 3) Liquids gathering and water delivery systems 4) Telemetric control and monitoring systems 5) Pipeline infrastructure prior to well completion. b) In the UDA, the Company shall utilize a high-low pressure vessel (HLP) and vapor recovery unit (VRU) for New Wells that are placed on production. The Company may remove the VRU at such time it determines that the VRU system is no longer necessary due to reduced emission recoveries and/or efficiencies, but no earlier than one (1) year after the New Well is placed on production. The Company may opt to capture gas and send through a thermal oxidizer in lieu of a HLP and VRU. c) Plunger lifts are not typically used in the Fort Collins Field due to insufficient gas. However if there is future use of plunger lifts, emissions shall be controlled from the motor control valve using low bleed pneumatic controllers. d) There will be no uncontrolled venting of methane. All gas vapors shall be captured to the extent practicable. Vapor capture equipment shall operate at ninety-eight percent (98%) efficiency or better. There are no gas sales lines in the Fort Collins field because the quantity and quality of gas is low and not marketable. If salable gas were to occur in the UDA, a sales line shall be constructed. e) Flaring during drilling and completions: During well completion, the capture and beneficial use of natural gas is preferred over flaring. Minimal flaring may occur in the Fort Collins field, because there is minimal gas in the field. Flaring shall be continuously monitored on-site by the Company, under twenty-four (24) hour watch and is regulated by COGCC Rules 317, 805B(3)B, and 912. No venting of gas may occur, except under COGCC Green Completion Practices (Rule 805 B(3)B), or in very limit cases under Rule 912 with the COGCC Director approval. f) Flaring during production operations: 1) The flare shall be fired with natural gas and shall be operated with a ninety eight (98) percent or higher VOC destruction efficiency. 2) The flare shall be designed and operated in a manner that shall ensure no visible emissions, pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.18(f), except for periods not to exceed a total of five (5) minutes during any two (2) consecutive hours. Where applicable, flares shall also be in OPTION 1 15 compliance with 5 CCR 1001-9 Regulation 7 Section XVIIB for non- condensate oil. 3) The flare shall be operated with a flame present at all times when emissions may be vented to it, pursuant to the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.18(f). 4) An automatic pilot system shall be used when feasible. Other ignition systems may include the installation and operation of a telemetry alarm system or an on-site visible indicator showing proper function. g) Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) – The Company shall develop and maintain a leak detection and component repair program according to EPA Method 21 for equipment used in permanent operations. LDAR shall be performed on newly installed equipment, and then on an annual basis. A Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera shall be used as the preferred implementation method of EPA Method 21 as available from the state; if unavailable, other methods shall be used in compliance with this method. Upon request from the City, the Company shall implement EPA Method 21 upon additional concerns. At least once per year, the Company shall notify the City prior to FLIR camera use in case the City wishes to observe the method. h) One Time Baseline Air Quality Monitoring - the Company and the City shall split the cost for a one time Baseline Sampling and Analytical. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of Tank Battery 2) Downwind of Tank Battery 3) City Park 4) One location downtown, such as New Belgium Brewery or Wild Boar Coffee i) One Time Air Sampling During Well Completion – The Company shall conduct air sampling during well completion. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties. This shall be done over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling shall be for one well completion in the City (City’s choice of which well completion). The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of well OPTION 1 16 2) Downwind of well j) Ongoing Air Quality Monitoring - Periodic air monitoring shall be performed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The Company shall perform field monitoring using the Jerome 631 XC or equivalent instrument annually, or until such time that odors are not detected past the Fort Collins Tank Battery fence line in City Limits. k) The City may require the Company to conduct additional air monitoring as needed to respond to emergency events such as spill, process upsets, or accidental releases or in response to odor complaints in City Limits. 1) In response to emergency events that involve the potential release of hazardous air pollutants, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with Subsection i. above. 2) In response to odor complaints, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with subsection j above or use a photo- ionization detector (PID) to measure detected levels of VOCs that exceed acute health-based exposure thresholds, or other air sampling methodology depending on the nature of the complaint. l) Air Quality Action Days. The Company shall respond to air quality Action Day advisories posted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the Front Range Area by implementing air emission reduction measures committed to in the Air Quality Mitigation Plan. Emission reduction measures shall be implemented for the duration of an air quality Action Day advisory and may include measures such as: 1) Minimize vehicle and engine idling 2) Reduce truck traffic and worker traffic 3) Delay vehicle refueling 4) Suspend or delay use of fossil fuel powered ancillary equipment 5) Postpone construction activities 22. Green completions. a) Gas gathering lines, separators, and sand traps capable of supporting green completions as described in COGCC Rule 805 shall be installed at any location at which commercial quantities of gas are reasonably expected to be produced based on existing adjacent wells within one (1) mile or well in the Fort Collins Field, whichever is greater. OPTION 1 17 b) Uncontrolled venting is prohibited. c) Temporary flowback flaring and oxidizing equipment shall include the following: 1) Adequately sized equipment to handle 1.5 times the largest flowback volume of gas experienced in a one (1) mile radius (or well in the Fort Collins Field), whichever is greater; 2) Valves and porting available to divert gas to flaring and oxidizing equipment; and 3) Auxiliary fueled with sufficient supply and heat to combust or oxidize non- combustible gases in order to control odors and hazardous gases. The flowback combustion device shall be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source over the duration of flowback, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion. 4) The Company has a general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere during flowback and subsequent recovery/operation. 23. Exhaust. The exhaust from all engines, motors, coolers and other mechanized equipment shall be vented up or in a direction away from the closest existing residences. 24. Fencing. Permanent perimeter fencing shall be installed around production equipment, and shall be secured. The main purpose of the fencing is to deter entrance by unauthorized people. The Company shall use visually interesting fencing, when feasible, but the parties recognize that there is a need for air circulation, and for the field personnel who regularly inspect the facilities to be able to identify visual operational deficiencies when driving by. Landscaping may be used for screening. If a chain link fence is required to achieve safety requirements set by the COGCC, then landscaping and other screening mechanisms shall be required that comply with the City’s Land Use Code regulations and the Company’s safety requirements. 25. Flammable material. All land within twenty five (25) feet of any tank, or other structure containing flammable or combustible materials shall be kept free of dry weeds, grass or rubbish, and shall conform to Section 315 of the International Fire Code. 26. Floodplains. All oil and gas operations shall comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code. 27. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Company shall comply with COGCC Rule 609. In summary, this requires pre- and post-drilling testing. The rules require oil and gas operators to sample all “Available Water Sources” (owner has given consent for sampling and testing and has consented to having the sample data obtained made available to the OPTION 1 18 public), with a cap of four (4) water sources, within one-half (1/2) mile radius of a proposed well, multi-well site, or dedicated injection well. Water sources include registered water wells, permitted or adjudicated springs, and certain monitoring wells. The Company agrees to the following requirements above and beyond the COGCC requirements: analyzing for dissolved metals as indicated in the Land Use Code and sampling intervals to be baseline (before drilling), post-drilling at one, three, and six years. Analytical results shall be shared with the COGCC, the City, and the landowner. All spills, for new and existing wells, shall be managed in accordance with COGCC regulations. 28. Landscaping. In the Fort Collins Field, existing Well Pads shall be used for any New Wells and all landscaping shall be in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code standards and in compliance with the safety requirements of the Company. Existing vegetation shall be minimally impacted. In the UDA, motorized equipment shall be restricted to the Well Pad and access roads to the Well Pads. A Visual Mitigation Plan, along with fencing and landscaping shall be developed for new construction. 29. Lighting. Except during drilling, completion or other operational activities requiring additional lighting, down-lighting is required, meaning that all bulbs must be fully shielded to prevent light emissions above a horizontal plane drawn from the bottom of the fixture. A lighting plan shall be developed to establish compliance with this provision. The lighting plan shall indicate the location of all outdoor lighting on the site and any structures, and include cut sheets (manufacturer's specifications with picture or diagram) of all proposed fixtures. 30. Maintenance of machinery. Routine field maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery shall not be performed within three hundred (300) feet of any water body. 31. Mud Tracking. The Company shall take all practicable measures to ensure that vehicles do not track mud or debris onto City streets. If mud or debris is nonetheless deposited on City streets, the streets shall be cleaned immediately by the Company using pressured water from a water truck. This shall be done as part of maintenance. If for some reason it cannot be done, or needs to be postponed, the LGD shall be notified of the Company’s plan for mud removal. 32. Natural Resources – An Ecological Characterization Study shall be provided if any New Well is within 500 feet of a Natural Habitat or Feature, and if impacting these resources, mitigation plans to ensure no net resource loss per Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.1. 33. Noise mitigation. Noise mitigation measures shall be constructed along any edge of any oil and gas operation site if such edge is between the oil and gas operation and existing residential development or land which is zoned for future residential development. The OPTION 1 19 noise mitigation measures shall, to the maximum extent feasible, decrease noise from the oil and gas operations to comply with the sound limitation regulations set forth in Commission Rule 802. A noise mitigation study shall be submitted with the application to demonstrate that noise will be decreased to the maximum extent feasible. 34. Pipelines. Any newly constructed or substantially modified pipelines on site shall meet the following requirements: (a) To the maximum extent feasible, all flow lines, gathering lines, and transmission lines shall be sited a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, as well as the high-water mark of any surface water body. This distance shall be measured from the nearest edge of the pipeline. Pipelines and gathering lines that pass within 150 feet of general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings or the high water mark of any surface water body shall incorporate leak detection, secondary containment, or other mitigation, as appropriate. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, pipelines shall be aligned with established roads in order to minimize surface impacts and reduce habitat fragmentation and disturbance. (c) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall share existing pipeline rights-of-way and consolidate new corridors for pipeline rights-of-way to minimize surface impacts. (d) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall use boring technology when crossing streams, rivers, or irrigation ditches with a pipeline to minimize negative impacts to the channel, bank, and riparian areas. 35. Recordation of flowlines. All new flowlines, including transmission and gathering systems, shall have the legal description of the location recorded with the City Clerk and the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder within thirty (30) days of completion of construction. Abandonment of any recorded flowlines shall be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office within thirty (30) days after abandonment. 36. Recreational Activity Standards. The installation and operation of any oil and gas operation shall not cause significant degradation to the quality and quantity of recreational activities in the City. Methods to achieve compliance with this standard include, but are not limited to locating operations away from trails and from property used for recreational purposes, or by using existing Well Pads. 37. Removal of debris. When an oil and gas operation becomes operational, all construction-related debris shall be removed from the site for proper disposal. The site shall be maintained free of debris and excess materials at all times during operation. Materials shall not be buried or burned on-site. OPTION 1 20 38. Removal of equipment. All equipment used for drilling, re-completion and maintenance of the facility shall be removed from the site within thirty (30) days of completion of the work, unless otherwise agreed to by the surface owner. Permanent storage of equipment on Well Pad sites shall not be allowed. 39. Soil Gas Monitoring – The City, at its discretion, may conduct soil gas monitoring to assess well casing integrity. This shall be typically completed within ninety (90) days of New Well completion. The City shall notify the Company prior to entering the site for soil gas monitoring. 40. Spills. Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, including the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Oil and Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Spill Control Prevention and Countermeasure plan, as applicable. If a spill or release impacts or threatens to impact surface water or a water well, the Company shall notify the affected or potentially affected owner immediately following discovery of the release, and the spill or release shall be reported to the City and to the surface water or water well owner within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the spill or release. 41. Stormwater control plan. All oil and gas operations shall comply and conform with the Fort Collins Storm Criteria Manual (FCSCM), including submission of an Erosion Control Report and Plan. 42. Temporary access roads. Temporary access roads associated with oil and gas operations shall be reclaimed and re-vegetated to the original state. 43. Trailers. A construction trailer or office is permitted as an accessory use during active drilling and well completion only. 44. Transportation and circulation. All applicants for drilling and completion operations (New Wells) shall include in their applications detailed descriptions of all proposed access routes for equipment, water, sand, waste fluids, waste solids, mixed waste, and all other material to be hauled on the public streets and roads of the City. The submittal shall also include the estimated weights of vehicles when loaded, a description of the vehicles, including the number of wheels and axles of such vehicles, trips per day and any other information required by the Traffic Engineer. Preliminary information is required for this item for the Conceptual Review meeting, in accordance with Appendix B. The Company shall comply with all Transportation and Circulation requirements as contained in the Land Use Code as may be reasonably required by the City’s Traffic Engineer. OPTION 1 21 45. Wastewater and Waste Management. In the Fort Collins Field, all fluids shall be contained and there shall be no discharge of fluids, as described in the Closed Loop System and Green Completions section of this Appendix. Waste shall be stored in tanks, transported by tanker trucks, and disposed of at licensed disposal fields. In the UDA, new secondary containment shall be constructed of steel, with sufficient perimeter and height to hold one and one-half (1.5) times the volume of the largest tank and sufficient freeboard to prevent overflow. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment enclosed a fired vessel. The requirements for secondary containment will meet the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. No land treatment of oil impacted or contaminated drill cuttings are permitted. The use of a closed loop drilling system precludes discharge of produced water or flowback to the ground or the use of pits. Produced water or flowback will not be used for dust suppression. A copy of the field’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) will be given to the City, which describes spill prevention and mitigation practices. The Company will provide the City documentation of waste disposal and its final disposition. 46. Water supply. The Company shall identify in the site plan its source for water used in both the drilling and production phases of operations. The sources and amount of water used in the City shall be documented and this record shall be provided to the City annually or sooner, if requested by the City Manager. The disposal of water used on site shall also be detailed including anticipated haul routes, approximate number of vehicles needed to supply and dispose of water and the final destination for water used in operation. 47. Weed control. The Company shall be responsible for ongoing weed control at oil and gas operations, pipelines, and along access roads during construction and operation, until abandonment and final reclamation is completed per City, Larimer County or other applicable agency regulations. The appropriate weed control methods and species to be controlled shall be determined through review and recommendation by the County Weed Coordinator by reference to the Larimer County Noxious Weed Management Plan and in coordination with the requirements of the surface owner. OPTION 1 22 APPENDIX B SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPANY FOR NEW WELL LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINS 1. Conceptual Review Submittal Requirements. The following documents shall be submitted prior to the Conceptual Review meeting outlined in Appendix A: a) A preliminary summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; b) A preliminary site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; c) A preliminary plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; d) A preliminary plan for noise, light and dust mitigation; e) A preliminary traffic management plan; f) A preliminary Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. g) A preliminary list of permits that shall be submitted in conjunction with the APD and any exceptions proposed to be requested. h) A draft air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. i) A draft emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) Preliminary list of chemicals proposed to be disclosed through the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism and regulated through the COGCC Rule 205. k) Proposed sampling locations in accordance with the water quality monitoring plan outlined in Appendix A. 2. Submittal Requirements Prior to Commencement. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company prior to the commencement of drilling and completion: a) A response letter that outlines how staff comments from the Conceptual Review were addressed during the APD permitting process. OPTION 1 23 b) A summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; c) A site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; d) A plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; e) A plan for noise, light and dust mitigation, to the extent reasonably feasible; f) A traffic management plan, if applicable, and a reasonable bond to cover any damage to public infrastructure during active drilling and completion; g) A Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. h) Copies of all permits requested, including any exceptions. i) A final air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) A final emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. k) Updated preliminary Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. l) Baseline water quality data collected in accordance with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 3. Submittal Requirements Post Well-Completion. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company after well-completion: a) Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. b) Water quality data collected at 1, 3, and 6 year post-completion intervals, as described in Appendix A. c) Air quality and other data collected throughout the post-completion phase, as identified in Appendix A. Option 2 ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2012 WITH RESPECT TO OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS CONDUCTED WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY UNDER AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC, UNDER AN OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC AND EXEMPTING SUCH OPERATIONS FROM THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 12-135 OF THE CITY CODE WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 145, 2012, the City Council established a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of land use applications, permit applications and other applications seeking approval to conduct oil and gas extraction or related operations within the City (the “Moratorium”); and WHEREAS, Section 12-135 of the City Code prohibits hydraulic fracturing and open pit storage in the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013-024 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council has approved an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013, that applies to all existing and future operations in the areas that are the subject of the Agreementof Prospect Energy within the City during the term of the Agreement, and by Resolution 2013-036, the City Council has adopted certain amendments thereto (the “Amended Agreement'”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that only those the oil and gas operations of Prospect Energy, LLC that are conducted within the geographic area described in the Amended Agreement and shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, should be exempted from the Moratorium and from the prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code, and that such exemptions should continue only as long as such operations are conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of said the Amended aAgreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 is hereby terminated with respect to all oil and gas operations conducted by Prospect Energy, LLC within the geographic area described on Exhibit “A,” provided that such operations are conducted in conformance with the Amended Agreementin conformance with the terms and conditions of that certain Oil and Gas Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013. Option 2 Section 2. The prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code shall not apply to oil and gas operations conducted by Prospect Energy, LLC within the geographic area described on Exhibit “A” as long as Prospect Energy, LLC conducts itssuch operations in conformance with the terms and conditions of the Amended Agreement that certain Oil and Gas Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC, dated March 19, 2013, and provided and further provided Section 3. That, in the event that a conflict exists between the provisions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code and the provisions of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall control. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk OPTION 2 RESOLUTION 2013-036 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC WHEREAS, Prospect Energy, LLC (“Prospect”) is engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration and extraction in the City and operates existing wells in an area known as the “Fort Collins Field,” which area is shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Prospect has leased certain additional lands in the City for the purpose of expanding its operations, which lands are shown on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and referenced as the Undeveloped Area or “UDA”; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-024, approving an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City and Prospect, which Agreement has been fully executed by both parties; and WHEREAS, the Agreement governs any new wells spudded by Prospect during the term of the Agreement that are located within the Fort Collins Field or the UDA, as well as any production facilities directly associated with such new wells; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to authorize Prospect to conduct its operations on such lands, notwithstanding a moratorium that has been imposed by the City on oil and gas operations through the enactment of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, and to utilize hydraulic fracturing during the course of its operations, notwithstanding a ban imposed on such activity through the enactment of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, as long as such operations are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Agreement should be amended to clarify that: (1) Prospect, in the course of its operations, will not re-enter any plugged or abandoned wells within the area of its operation; (2) any new wells drilled all exploration and drilling actions conducted by Prospect under the Agreement must, as of the effective date of the Agreement, comply with the new rules of the COGCC, which will officially take effect on August 1, 2013; and (3) the Amended Agreement must be executed by both parties on or before May 1June 15, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also determined that the Amended Agreement should be limited to the Fort Collins Field only; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a proposed amended Agreement between the City and Prospect to the City Council for its consideration that makes the foregoing changes (the “Amended Agreement”); and OPTION 2 WHEREAS, the Amended Agreement continues to contain strict controls on methane release and adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the approval and execution of the Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Amended Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “AC,” is hereby determined by the City Council to include strict controls on methane release and to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City, and is hereby approved. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Amended Agreement on substantially the same terms and conditions as shown on Exhibit “AC,” subject to such minor modifications in form or substance 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 Ordinance. Section 3. That the Amended Agreement may only be further amended by the City Council by resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk OPTION 2 1 AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT THIS OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ___________, 2013 , by and through Prospect Energy, LLC, whose address is 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710, Denver, CO 80202 (referred to hereinafter as the “Company”), and The City of Fort Collins (referred to hereinafter as the “City”) with an address of 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80522, which may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, or individually as a “Party”. WHEREAS, the Company and its affiliates, namely, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC (“BDM”), the parent of the Company, engage in the exploration, development, production and marketing of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids in the Rocky Mountains, including the State of Colorado. The Company currently operates the Fort Collins Field (the “Field”) located in Larimer County, with certain portions of the Field located within the City, as depicted in Exhibit A, and, as such, is the only operator with active oil and gas operations within the City. The Company through its parent BDM, also holds certain leasehold interests within the City described as the Undeveloped Area (the “UDA”), as depicted in Exhibit B. WHEREAS, the Field was discovered in 1924, and has continually produced oil and associated hydrocarbons to this day. As is common with other older, once remote, oil and gas developments around the state, urban growth and subsequent annexation of certain lands by the City have encroached upon the Field. These annexations, including the Richard’s Lake subdivision (developed in the late 1990’s) and the Hearthfire subdivision (developed in the mid 2000’s), have allowed developers to place residential areas in the vicinity of active oil and gas operations. Some property lines are now within 150 feet of oil wells constructed on then-rural well pads. WHEREAS, the Field is an oil producing field unitized for waterflood operations from the Muddy Sandstone Formation (which yields the majority of the Field’s production), but the Field also produces oil from the Niobrara, Codell, Dakota, and Lyons Formations, all of which may need future development. WHEREAS, recent engineering and geological analysis indicates that certain parts of the Field may yield substantial incremental resource recovery by expanding the secondary recovery waterflood project by drilling and hydraulic fracturing new wells drilled from lands currently called Waters Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions (the “Subdivisions”). The Company is presently studying the UDA to assess whether it would support the development of mineral resources. WHEREAS, in the Field and UDA, the Company has entered into Surface Use Agreements with the surface owners, dated December 19, 1988, as amended April 19, 2001, and EXHIBIT C OPTION 2 2 March 17, 2011, respectively, which expressly govern the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Subdivisions, and other specified terms, including, but not limited to, landscaping and fencing around wells and associated production equipment. WHEREAS, the City and the Company value a balanced approach to oil and gas development that is protective of public health, safety and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources. To that end, in order to achieve those goals in a cooperative manner, the City and the Company enter into this Agreement to identify best management practices (“BMPs”) for the Company’s future drilling operations within the Field. WHEREAS, the Field extends beyond the City limits and the Company, as a responsible oil and gas operator, has installed a vapor recovery unit at its existing production facility located just south of Douglas Road (the “Fort Collins Tank Battery”) as shown in the Exhibit A attached hereto which lies outside of the City limits. All water, oil and gas produced from any New Well, as defined herein, and located in the Field, will flow into existing or future pipelines to the Fort Collins Tank Battery where gas will be captured and sent to the thermal oxidizer for destruction. Equipment, both at the Fort Collins Tank Battery and within City limits, will capture and destroy at least 98% of any methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC). WHEREAS, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, C.R.S. §34-60-101 et. seq. (the “Act”), authorizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC” or “Commission”) to adopt statewide rules and regulations, which the Commission has done. Further, the Commission continues to consider changes to the rules and regulations. WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, by the adoption of Ordinance 145, 2012, the City Council imposed a temporary moratorium until July 31, 2013 on the acceptance, processing and approval of any land use applications relating to new oil and gas development (the “Moratorium”). WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, the City Council enacted Sec. 12-135 of the City Code prohibiting the use of hydraulic fracturing in the City, as well as the storage in open pits of solid or liquid wastes and /or flowback (the “Ban”) and, through the enactment of City Code Sec. 12-136, exempted from the Ban any oil or gas wells or pad sites existing within the City as of February 19, 2013, that become the subject of an operator agreement between the operator of the same and the City, as long as such agreement includes strict controls on methane release and, in the judgment of the City Council, adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. OPTION 2 3 WHEREAS, by Resolution ______, the City Council has approved this Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with the Company, and the Parties agree to the terms and conditions contained below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, including in the recitals, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Effective Date. When this Agreement is presented to the City Council for its consideration, City staff will also present to the City Council an ordinance exempting all Company operations within the area described in Exhibits “A” and “B” from the Moratorium and the Ban, which exemption will continue in effect as long as the Company’s operations are conducted in accordance with this Agreement. The Effective Date of such ordinance shall be the “Effective Date” of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be void and of no effect as of August May 1June 15, 2013, unless this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties on or before such date such ordinance has been approved by the City Council and has taken effect on or before said date. 2. The Company’s Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) within City Limits. The Company shall include the BMPs listed in Appendix A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, submitted to the Commission for a ”New Well”. For the purposes of this provision, “New Well” shall mean any Company-operated well spudded during the term of this Agreement, and located on either a currently existing well pad or a New Well pad that is located within the City limits, and a “New Well Pad” shall mean any area that is directly disturbed during the drilling and subsequent operation of a New Well, including any production facilities directly associated with such well, and its associated Well Pad, insofar as it covers lands located in the City limits. The BMPs shall apply to all New Wells drilled by the Company while this Agreement is effective. The Company shall not drill on any plugged and abandoned well pad sites. For the purposes of this Agreement, a New Well shall not include the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well; accordingly, the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well is not allowed. 3. City Regulatory Approvals. The Company shall not be required to obtain any project development plan or final plan approval from the City to conduct its oil and gas operations within the Field, as long as the Company complies with the terms and conditions contained herein, and this Agreement shall control all oil and gas operations conducted by the Company within the Field. Prior to the submission of a COGCC Form 2 and/or Form 2A to the COGCC, the Company shall meet with the City to review the proposed oil and gas operation to ensure compliance with this Agreement, all applicable state and federal regulations, and any site- specific concerns, which concerns may include overall project impacts and economically and technically feasible mitigation measures or BMPs related to field design and infrastructure OPTION 2 4 construction to minimize potential adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare. At such time, if at all, that the City and Larimer County, Colorado (the “County”) enter into a written agreement that authorizes the City to regulate the oil and gas operations of the Company within the Growth Management Area, such operations shall thereafter be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall be subject to the City’s regulatory authority as provided in this Agreement. “Growth Management Area” shall be as described in that certain Intergovernmental Agreement entered into by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County on June 24,2008, nunc pro func [sic] October 17, 2006. 4. Operations on Existing Facilities. For any Facility owned by the Company and existing prior to the Effective Date and located within the Field, the Parties hereby agree that the Company may perform routine maintenance operations on said Facility and perform such operations the Company deems prudent and necessary, including, but not limited to, stimulating existing wells through hydraulic fracturing and temporarily storing chemicals on existing well pads for that purpose. The Company agrees to conduct such operations as a prudent operator in accordance with the rules and regulation of the COGCC; however, the Company shall not be subject to the BMP’s as attached hereto, except for Appendix A paragraphs 201(j) and 201(k) thereof. “Facility” as used in this provision shall include wells, pipelines, and all equipment necessary and appurtenant to such wells and pipelines. 5. Term. This Agreement is effective upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the Effective Date, at which time the Agreement shall be automatically renewed and extended for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until either Party elects to terminate the Agreement at the end of the then current five (5) year term by providing written notice of such intent to the other party at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of said term. 6. Force Majeure. Neither Party will be liable for any delay or failure in performing under this Agreement in the event and to the extent that the delay or failure arises out of causes beyond a Party’s reasonable control, including, without limitation, war, civil commotion, act of God, strike or other stoppage (whether partial or total) of labor, or any law, decree, regulation, or order of any government or governmental body (including any court or tribunal). 7. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each Party represents that the undersigned have the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind the Parties to the terms and conditions contained herein. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument executed by both Parties hereto. 8. Successors and Assigns. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and extend to the City and the Company, and the Company’s successors and assigns. OPTION 2 5 9. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except for the rights of enforcement by the Commission with respect to the BMPs, this Agreement is not intended to, and does not create, any right, benefit, responsibility or obligation that may be enforced by any non-party. Additionally, nothing in the Agreement shall entitle any third party to any claims, rights or remedies of any kind. 10. Notices. All notices and other correspondence related to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by: (i) certified mail with return receipt, (ii) hand delivery with signature or delivery receipt provided by a third party courier service (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.), (iii) fax transmission if verification of receipt is obtained, or (iv) email with return receipt, to the designated representative of the Party as indicated below. A Party may change its designated representative for notice purposes at any time by written notice to the other Party. The initial representatives of the Parties are as follows: City: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attn: City Manager Telephone: 970-416-2253 Fax: 970-224-6107 Email: datteberry@fcgov.com Company: Prospect Energy, LLC 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Scott D. Hall, Manager Telephone: 303-973-3228, ext. 223 Fax: 303-346-4893 Email: sdhall@bdminerals.com 11. Default; Remedies. If either party believes that the other Party has failed to comply with any provision of this Agreement, or if any other kind of dispute arises under any provision of this Agreement that cannot be resolved by good faith negotiation between the Parties, the Party claiming that a breach of this Agreement has occurred or seeking resolution of any other dispute under this Agreement shall send written notice to the other Party, specifying its position in the matter and invoking the dispute resolution process in this section. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of delivery of such notice, the Parties shall meet to resolve the matter described in the notice. If either Party believes that mediation would be advantageous in connection with such meeting, or if a resolution of the matter cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to make a reasonable effort to work through and with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if either Party believes that the dispute will not otherwise be resolved in a sufficiently prompt and effective manner, such Party may, at its OPTION 2 6 discretion, take such legal action and seek such legal or equitable remedies as it determines to be appropriate or necessary to protect and enforce its rights under this Agreement. Such remedies may include, without limitation, an injunction to stop an alleged violation or an order requiring the performance of all acts and things required to be performed hereunder by the other Party. 12. Integration Clause: This Agreement, along with all exhibits and appendices attached hereto encompasses the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the Parties, whether oral or written. 13. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado without reference to its conflicts of laws provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized representative on the day and year first written above. THE CITY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION By: _____________________________________ Darin Atteberry, City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Deputy City Attorney THE COMPANY: PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC By (signature): _________________________________________ Scott Hall, CEO OPTION 2 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Map of the Fort Collins Field and City boundaries Exhibit B - Map of the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) and City Boundaries Appendix A – List of BMP’s Appendix B – Submittal Requirements OPTION 2 8 APPENDIX A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINSFIELD Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Company shall include the best management practices listed below on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, (for New Well Pads only), submitted to the Commission for New Wells the Company drills after the Effective Date within the Field. 1. Regulations. The Company shall comply with all applicable state, and federal regulations in addition to the terms of this agreement and the Best Management Practices included below. For aAny exploration or drilling activity conducted by the Company must comply with the revised rules adopted by the COGCC on January 9, 2013, even though such rules will not officially take effect until August 1, 2013. Whichever regulation is most stringent shall apply. 2. Setbacks for New Wells. It is the intent of the Company to maximize equipment and wellhead setbacks from occupied buildings and residences beyond the setbacks required by the COGCC to the extent feasible and practicable. The Parties recognize that a portion of the Field is within the Fort Collins City Limits and as such, development has occurred within the already established Field. The surface owner has obtained permitted plats for residential areas in the vicinity of existing oil and gas activities, including a constructed city park and contemplated building units and public roads within three hundred fifty (350) feet of an existing well. Further, the Parties acknowledge that the Commission rules require a minimum of five hundred (500) feet safety setback for New Well construction from a building unit and one thousand feet (1,000) from a high occupancy building. Any New Wells drilled in the UDA shall conform to the Commission setback rules then in effect, except for and any New Well in the UDA drilled before August 1, 2013, which well shall be subject to comply with the Commission setback rules to take effect that will become effective on August 1, 2013. In the Fort Collins Field, New Wells shall be constructed on existing Well Pads, which due to previous setback requirements, and City approval of residential development, do not conform to five hundred (500) feet setbacks, and are given an exemption from the Commission in the Rules now in effect. The Parties recognize the existence of a Surface Use Agreement (the “SUA”) between the Company and the surface owner which expressly governs the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Water’s Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions OPTION 2 9 (the “Subdivisions”), and that certain terms found in the SUA may affect Commission setbacks and other Commission rules. 3. Conceptual Review. No less than thirty (30) days prior to the submission of an Application for a Permit to Drill, the Company agrees to schedule a meeting with the City to review the proposed new well or drilling activity. The goal of this meeting shall be for staff and the applicant to review the proposed oil and gas operation in a manner that ensures compliance with the operator agreement and applicable state and federal regulations. This pre-submittal meeting shall also allow the applicant and staff to explore site-specific concerns, to discuss project impacts and potential mitigation methods including field design and infrastructure construction to minimize impacts, to discuss coordination of field design with other existing or potential development and operators, to identify sampling and monitoring plans for air and water quality, and other elements of the operator agreement as contained in Appendices A and B. Based upon the foregoing, applicants are encouraged to conduct the pre-submittal meeting with the City prior to completing well siting decisions, to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail notice of the pending Application for a Permit to Drill no more than ten (10) days after the conceptual review meeting has taken place. The Company shall reimburse the City for the costs of the mailing. Owners of record shall be ascertained according to the records of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, unless more current information is made available in writing to the City prior to the mailing of the notices. Notice of the pending application shall include reference to the neighborhood meeting, if applicable, and be made as follows: ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within five hundred (500) feet of a proposed gathering line; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within two thousand six hundred forty (2,640) feet of the parcel on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; and ⼀ To persons registered in writing with the City as representing bona fide neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowners' associations within the area of notification. 5. Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign, giving notice to the general public of the proposed development. For parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6(D) of the City’s Land Use Code. Such signs shall be provided by the City and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations OPTION 2 10 reasonably calculated by the City to afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within ten (10) days following the Conceptual Review meeting. 6. Neighborhood Meetings. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any New Well, even on existing Well Pads, that requires an Application for a Permit to Drill. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 above. The Company shall attend the neighborhood meeting. The City shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the neighborhood meeting and shall hold the meeting in the vicinity of the proposed development. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting shall be prepared by the City. The written summary shall be included in the Local Government Designee (LGD) comments provided to the COGCC at the time of the public hearing or permit review to consider the Application for a Permit to Drill. 7. Notification to the City and the public regarding commencement of operations. Prior to the commencement of any new drilling operations, the Company shall provide to the City Manager for posting on the website the information outlined in Appendix B regarding commencement of operations, which the Company may revise from time-to-time during operations, with prior approval from the City. 8. Inspections. The City shall have the right to inspect the Company’s operations and its sites during business hours, upon the giving of twenty-four (24) hour advance written notice to the Company. 9. Containment berms. The Company shall utilize steel-rim berms around tanks and separators at new Well Pads. All berms and containment devices shall be inspected at regular intervals and maintained in good condition. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment area encloses a fired vessel. Refer to American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices, API RP - D16. a) Containment berms shall be constructed of steel rings, designed and installed to prevent leakage and resist degradation from erosion or routine operation. b) Secondary containment for tanks shall be constructed with a synthetic or engineered liner that contains all primary containment vessels and flowlines and is mechanically connected to the steel ring to prevent leakage. c) For locations within five hundred (500) feet and upgradient of a surface water body, tertiary containment, such as an earthen berm, is required around production facilities. 10. Closed Loop Pitless Systems for the Containment and/or Recycling of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Wells shall be drilled, completed and operated using closed loop OPTION 2 11 pitless systems for containment and/or recycling of all drilling, completion, flowback and produced fluids. 11. Anchoring. All equipment at drilling and production sites shall be anchored to the extent necessary to resist flotation, collapse, lateral movement, or subsidence. All guy line anchors left buried for future use shall be identified by a marker of bright color not less than four (4) feet in height and not greater than one (1) foot east of the guy line anchor. 12. Burning. No open burning shall occur on the site of any oil and gas operation. 13. Chains. Traction chains from heavy equipment shall be removed before entering a City street. 14. Chemical disclosure and storage. The City shall be provided, in table format, the name, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, volume, storage, containment and disposal method for all drilling and completion chemicals (solids, fluids, and gases) used on the Well Pad. Fracture chemicals shall be uploaded onto the Frac Focus website. The Company shall not permanently store hydraulic fracturing chemicals, flowback from hydraulic fracturing, or produced water in the City limits. 15. Color. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non-contrasting, non- reflective color, to blend with the surrounding landscape and, with colors that match the land rather than the sky. The color should be slightly darker than the surrounding landscape. 16. Cultural and Historical Resource Protection. If a significant surface or sub-surface archaeological site is discovered during construction, the Company shall be responsible for immediately contacting the City to report the discovery. If any disturbance of the resource occurs, the Company shall be responsible for mitigating the disturbance to the cultural or historical property through a data recovery plan approved by the City. 17. Discharge valves. Open-ended discharge valves on all storage tanks, pipelines and other containers shall be secured where the operation site is unattended or is accessible to the general public. Open-ended discharge valves shall be placed within the interior of the tank secondary containment. 18. Dust suppression. Dust associated with on-site activities and traffic on access roads shall be minimized throughout construction, drilling and operational activities such that there are no visible dust emissions from access roads or the site to the extent practical given wind conditions. No produced water or other process fluids shall be used for dust suppression. The Company will avoid dust suppression activities within three hundred (300) feet of the ordinary high water mark of any waterbody, unless the dust suppressant is water. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for any chemical based dust suppressant shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to use. OPTION 2 12 19. Electric equipment. Electric-powered engines for motors, compressors, and drilling equipment and for pumping systems shall be used in order to mitigate noise and to reduce emissions when feasible. 20. Emergency preparedness plan. The Company is required to develop an emergency preparedness plan for each specific facility site, which shall be in compliance with the International Fire Code. The plan shall be filed with the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins Office of Emergency Management and updated on an annual basis or as conditions change (responsible field personnel change, ownership changes, etc.). The emergency preparedness plan shall consist of at least the following information: a) Name, address and phone number, including twenty-four (24)-hour emergency numbers for at least two persons responsible for emergency field operations. b) An as-built facilities map in a format suitable for input into the City’s GIS system depicting the locations and type of above and below ground facilities including sizes, and depths below grade of all oil and gas gathering and transmission lines and associated equipment, isolation valves, surface operations and their functions, as well as transportation routes to and from exploration and development sites, for emergency response and management purposes. The information concerning pipelines and isolation valves shall be held confidentially by the City's Office of Emergency Management and the Battalion Chief, and shall only be disclosed in the event of an emergency or to emergency responders. The City shall deny the right of inspection of the as-built facilities maps to the public or for the training of emergency responders pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-72-204. c) Detailed information addressing each reasonable potential emergency that may be associated with the operation. This may include any or all of the following: explosions, fires, gas, oil or water pipeline leaks or ruptures, hydrogen sulfide or other toxic gas emissions, or hazardous material vehicle accidents or spills. A provision that any spill outside of the containment area, that has the potential to leave the facility or to threaten waters of the state, or as required by the City- approved Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be reported to the local emergency dispatch and the COGCC Director in accordance with COGCC regulations. d) Detailed information identifying access or evacuation routes, and health care facilities anticipated to be used. e) A project specific emergency preparedness plan for any project that involves drilling or penetrating through known zones of hydrogen sulfide gas. OPTION 2 13 f) Detailed information showing that the Company has adequate personnel, supplies, and training to implement the emergency response plan immediately at all times during construction and operations. g) The Company shall have current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals used or stored on a site. The MSDS sheets shall be provided immediately upon request to City officials, a public safety officer, or a health professional. h) The plan shall include a provision establishing a process by which the Company engages with the surrounding neighbors to educate them on the risks of the on-site operations and to establish a process for surrounding neighbors to communicate with the Company. i) All training associated with the Emergency Preparedness plan shall be coordinated with the City’s Office of Emergency Management and Poudre Fire Authority. j) A provision obligating the Company to reimburse the appropriate emergency response service providers for costs incurred in connection with any emergency in accordance with Colorado State Statutes. 21. Air quality. The Company must comply with emissions regulations governed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). Air emissions from wells shall be in compliance with the permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Section 7, C.R.S., COGCC Rule 805, and all state and federal regulations for the control of fugitive dust, and control of ozone, ozone precursors, methane, and hazardous air pollutants by the Larimer County Public Health Department, and the CDPHE-APCD. The Company must comply with 40 CFR Subpart OOOO as published on August 16, 2012 (Quad O). a) General Duty to Minimize Emissions. The Company shall incorporate in the development plan; operations, procedures, and field design features to the maximum extent feasible that minimize air pollutant emissions including but not limited to: 1) Consolidation of product treatment and storage facilities 2) Centralization of compression facilities 3) Liquids gathering and water delivery systems 4) Telemetric control and monitoring systems 5) Pipeline infrastructure prior to well completion. OPTION 2 14 b) In the UDA, the Company shall utilize a high-low pressure vessel (HLP) and vapor recovery unit (VRU) for New Wells that are placed on production. The Company may remove the VRU at such time it determines that the VRU system is no longer necessary due to reduced emission recoveries and/or efficiencies, but no earlier than one (1) year after the New Well is placed on production. The Company may opt to capture gas and send through a thermal oxidizer in lieu of a HLP and VRU. c)b) Plunger lifts are not typically used in the Fort Collins Field due to insufficient gas. However if there is future use of plunger lifts, emissions shall be controlled from the motor control valve using low bleed pneumatic controllers. d)c) There will be no uncontrolled venting of methane. All gas vapors shall be captured to the extent practicable. Vapor capture equipment shall operate at ninety-eight percent (98%) efficiency or better. There are no gas sales lines in the Fort Collins field because the quantity and quality of gas is low and not marketable. If salable gas were to occur in the UDA, a sales line shall be constructed. e)d) Flaring during drilling and completions: During well completion, the capture and beneficial use of natural gas is preferred over flaring. Minimal flaring may occur in the Fort Collins fField, because there is minimal gas in the field. Flaring shall be continuously monitored on-site by the Company, under twenty-four (24) hour watch and is regulated by COGCC Rules 317, 805B(3)B, and 912. No venting of gas may occur, except under COGCC Green Completion Practices (Rule 805 B(3)B), or in very limit cases under Rule 912 with the COGCC Director approval. f)e) Flaring during production operations: 1) The flare shall be fired with natural gas and shall be operated with a ninety eight (98) percent or higher VOC destruction efficiency. 2) The flare shall be designed and operated in a manner that shall ensure no visible emissions, pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.18(f), except for periods not to exceed a total of five (5) minutes during any two (2) consecutive hours. Where applicable, flares shall also be in compliance with 5 CCR 1001-9 Regulation 7 Section XVIIB for non- condensate oil. OPTION 2 15 3) The flare shall be operated with a flame present at all times when emissions may be vented to it, pursuant to the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.18(f). 4) An automatic pilot system shall be used when feasible. Other ignition systems may include the installation and operation of a telemetry alarm system or an on-site visible indicator showing proper function. g)f) Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) – The Company shall develop and maintain a leak detection and component repair program according to EPA Method 21 for equipment used in permanent operations. LDAR shall be performed on newly installed equipment, and then on an annual basis. A Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera shall be used as the preferred implementation method of EPA Method 21 as available from the state; if unavailable, other methods shall be used in compliance with this method. Upon request from the City, the Company shall implement EPA Method 21 upon additional concerns. At least once per year, the Company shall notify the City prior to FLIR camera use in case the City wishes to observe the method. h)g) One Time Baseline Air Quality Monitoring - the Company and the City shall split the cost for a one time Baseline Sampling and Analytical. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of Tank Battery 2) Downwind of Tank Battery 3) City Park 4) One location downtown, such as New Belgium Brewery or Wild Boar Coffee i)h) One Time Air Sampling During Well Completion – The Company shall conduct air sampling during well completion. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties. This shall be done over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling shall be for one well completion in the City (City’s choice of which well completion). The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of well 2) Downwind of well OPTION 2 16 j)i) Ongoing Air Quality Monitoring - Periodic air monitoring shall be performed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The Company shall perform field monitoring using the Jerome 631 XC or equivalent instrument annually, or until such time that odors are not detected past the Fort Collins Tank Battery fence line in City Limits. k)j) The City may require the Company to conduct additional air monitoring as needed to respond to emergency events such as spill, process upsets, or accidental releases or in response to odor complaints in City Limits. 1) In response to emergency events that involve the potential release of hazardous air pollutants, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with Subsection i. above. 2) In response to odor complaints, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with subsection j above or use a photo- ionization detector (PID) to measure detected levels of VOCs that exceed acute health-based exposure thresholds, or other air sampling methodology depending on the nature of the complaint. l)k) Air Quality Action Days. The Company shall respond to air quality Action Day advisories posted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the Front Range Area by implementing air emission reduction measures committed to in the Air Quality Mitigation Plan. Emission reduction measures shall be implemented for the duration of an air quality Action Day advisory and may include measures such as: 1) Minimize vehicle and engine idling 2) Reduce truck traffic and worker traffic 3) Delay vehicle refueling 4) Suspend or delay use of fossil fuel powered ancillary equipment 5) Postpone construction activities 22. Green completions. a) Gas gathering lines, separators, and sand traps capable of supporting green completions as described in COGCC Rule 805 shall be installed at any location at which commercial quantities of gas are reasonably expected to be produced based on existing adjacent wells within one (1) mile or well in the Fort Collins Field, whichever is greater. b) Uncontrolled venting is prohibited. OPTION 2 17 c) Temporary flowback flaring and oxidizing equipment shall include the following: 1) Adequately sized equipment to handle 1.5 times the largest flowback volume of gas experienced in a one (1) mile radius (or well in the Fort Collins Field), whichever is greater; 2) Valves and porting available to divert gas to flaring and oxidizing equipment; and 3) Auxiliary fueled with sufficient supply and heat to combust or oxidize non- combustible gases in order to control odors and hazardous gases. The flowback combustion device shall be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source over the duration of flowback, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion. 4) The Company has a general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere during flowback and subsequent recovery/operation. 23. Exhaust. The exhaust from all engines, motors, coolers and other mechanized equipment shall be vented up or in a direction away from the closest existing residences. 24. Fencing. Permanent perimeter fencing shall be installed around production equipment, and shall be secured. The main purpose of the fencing is to deter entrance by unauthorized people. The Company shall use visually interesting fencing, when feasible, but the parties recognize that there is a need for air circulation, and for the field personnel who regularly inspect the facilities to be able to identify visual operational deficiencies when driving by. Landscaping may be used for screening. If a chain link fence is required to achieve safety requirements set by the COGCC, then landscaping and other screening mechanisms shall be required that comply with the City’s Land Use Code regulations and the Company’s safety requirements. 25. Flammable material. All land within twenty five (25) feet of any tank, or other structure containing flammable or combustible materials shall be kept free of dry weeds, grass or rubbish, and shall conform to Section 315 of the International Fire Code. 26. Floodplains. All oil and gas operations shall comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code. 27. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Company shall comply with COGCC Rule 609. In summary, this requires pre- and post-drilling testing. The rules require oil and gas operators to sample all “Available Water Sources” (owner has given consent for sampling and testing and has consented to having the sample data obtained made available to the public), with a cap of four (4) water sources, within one-half (1/2) mile radius of a proposed well, multi-well site, or dedicated injection well. Water sources include OPTION 2 18 registered water wells, permitted or adjudicated springs, and certain monitoring wells. The Company agrees to the following requirements above and beyond the COGCC requirements: analyzing for dissolved metals as indicated in the Land Use Code and sampling intervals to be baseline (before drilling), post-drilling at one, three, and six years. Analytical results shall be shared with the COGCC, the City, and the landowner. All spills, for new and existing wells, shall be managed in accordance with COGCC regulations. 28. Landscaping. In the Fort Collins Field, eExisting Well Pads shall be used for any New Wells and all landscaping shall be in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code standards and in compliance with the safety requirements of the Company. Existing vegetation shall be minimally impacted. In the UDA, motorized equipment shall be restricted to the Well Pad and access roads to the Well Pads. A Visual Mitigation Plan, along with fencing and landscaping shall be developed for new construction. 29. Lighting. Except during drilling, completion or other operational activities requiring additional lighting, down-lighting is required, meaning that all bulbs must be fully shielded to prevent light emissions above a horizontal plane drawn from the bottom of the fixture. A lighting plan shall be developed to establish compliance with this provision. The lighting plan shall indicate the location of all outdoor lighting on the site and any structures, and include cut sheets (manufacturer's specifications with picture or diagram) of all proposed fixtures. 30. Maintenance of machinery. Routine field maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery shall not be performed within three hundred (300) feet of any water body. 31. Mud Tracking. The Company shall take all practicable measures to ensure that vehicles do not track mud or debris onto City streets. If mud or debris is nonetheless deposited on City streets, the streets shall be cleaned immediately by the Company using pressured water from a water truck. This shall be done as part of maintenance. If for some reason it cannot be done, or needs to be postponed, the LGD shall be notified of the Company’s plan for mud removal. 32. Natural Resources – An Ecological Characterization Study shall be provided if any New Well is within 500 feet of a Natural Habitat or Feature, and if impacting these resources, mitigation plans to ensure no net resource loss per Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.1. 33. Noise mitigation. Noise mitigation measures shall be constructed along any edge of any oil and gas operation site if such edge is between the oil and gas operation and existing residential development or land which is zoned for future residential development. The noise mitigation measures shall, to the maximum extent feasible, decrease noise from the OPTION 2 19 oil and gas operations to comply with the sound limitation regulations set forth in Commission Rule 802. A noise mitigation study shall be submitted with the application to demonstrate that noise will be decreased to the maximum extent feasible. 34. Pipelines. Any newly constructed or substantially modified pipelines on site shall meet the following requirements: (a) To the maximum extent feasible, all flow lines, gathering lines, and transmission lines shall be sited a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, as well as the high-water mark of any surface water body. This distance shall be measured from the nearest edge of the pipeline. Pipelines and gathering lines that pass within 150 feet of general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings or the high water mark of any surface water body shall incorporate leak detection, secondary containment, or other mitigation, as appropriate. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, pipelines shall be aligned with established roads in order to minimize surface impacts and reduce habitat fragmentation and disturbance. (c) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall share existing pipeline rights-of-way and consolidate new corridors for pipeline rights-of-way to minimize surface impacts. (d) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall use boring technology when crossing streams, rivers, or irrigation ditches with a pipeline to minimize negative impacts to the channel, bank, and riparian areas. 35. Recordation of flowlines. All new flowlines, including transmission and gathering systems, shall have the legal description of the location recorded with the City Clerk and the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder within thirty (30) days of completion of construction. Abandonment of any recorded flowlines shall be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office within thirty (30) days after abandonment. 36. Recreational Activity Standards. The installation and operation of any oil and gas operation shall not cause significant degradation to the quality and quantity of recreational activities in the City. Methods to achieve compliance with this standard include, but are not limited to locating operations away from trails and from property used for recreational purposes, or by using existing Well Pads. 37. Removal of debris. When an oil and gas operation becomes operational, all construction-related debris shall be removed from the site for proper disposal. The site shall be maintained free of debris and excess materials at all times during operation. Materials shall not be buried or burned on-site. OPTION 2 20 38. Removal of equipment. All equipment used for drilling, re-completion and maintenance of the facility shall be removed from the site within thirty (30) days of completion of the work, unless otherwise agreed to by the surface owner. Permanent storage of equipment on Well Pad sites shall not be allowed. 39. Soil Gas Monitoring – The City, at its discretion, may conduct soil gas monitoring to assess well casing integrity. This shall be typically completed within ninety (90) days of New Well completion. The City shall notify the Company prior to entering the site for soil gas monitoring. 40. Spills. Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, including the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Oil and Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Spill Control Prevention and Countermeasure plan, as applicable. If a spill or release impacts or threatens to impact surface water or a water well, the Company shall notify the affected or potentially affected owner immediately following discovery of the release, and the spill or release shall be reported to the City and to the surface water or water well owner within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the spill or release. 41. Stormwater control plan. All oil and gas operations shall comply and conform with the Fort Collins Storm Criteria Manual (FCSCM), including submission of an Erosion Control Report and Plan. 42. Temporary access roads. Temporary access roads associated with oil and gas operations shall be reclaimed and re-vegetated to the original state. 43. Trailers. A construction trailer or office is permitted as an accessory use during active drilling and well completion only. 44. Transportation and circulation. All applicants for drilling and completion operations (New Wells) shall include in their applications detailed descriptions of all proposed access routes for equipment, water, sand, waste fluids, waste solids, mixed waste, and all other material to be hauled on the public streets and roads of the City. The submittal shall also include the estimated weights of vehicles when loaded, a description of the vehicles, including the number of wheels and axles of such vehicles, trips per day and any other information required by the Traffic Engineer. Preliminary information is required for this item for the Conceptual Review meeting, in accordance with Appendix B. The Company shall comply with all Transportation and Circulation requirements as contained in the Land Use Code as may be reasonably required by the City’s Traffic Engineer. OPTION 2 21 45. Wastewater and Waste Management. In the Fort Collins Field, aAll fluids shall be contained and there shall be no discharge of fluids, as described in the Closed Loop System and Green Completions section of this Appendix. Waste shall be stored in tanks, transported by tanker trucks, and disposed of at licensed disposal fields. In the UDA, new secondary containment shall be constructed of steel, with sufficient perimeter and height to hold one and one-half (1.5) times the volume of the largest tank and sufficient freeboard to prevent overflow. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment enclosed a fired vessel. The requirements for secondary containment will meet the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. No land treatment of oil impacted or contaminated drill cuttings are permitted. The use of a closed loop drilling system precludes discharge of produced water or flowback to the ground or the use of pits. Produced water or flowback will not be used for dust suppression. A copy of the field’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) will be given to the City, which describes spill prevention and mitigation practices. The Company will provide the City documentation of waste disposal and its final disposition. 46. Water supply. The Company shall identify in the site plan its source for water used in both the drilling and production phases of operations. The sources and amount of water used in the City shall be documented and this record shall be provided to the City annually or sooner, if requested by the City Manager. The disposal of water used on site shall also be detailed including anticipated haul routes, approximate number of vehicles needed to supply and dispose of water and the final destination for water used in operation. 47. Weed control. The Company shall be responsible for ongoing weed control at oil and gas operations, pipelines, and along access roads during construction and operation, until abandonment and final reclamation is completed per City, Larimer County or other applicable agency regulations. The appropriate weed control methods and species to be controlled shall be determined through review and recommendation by the County Weed Coordinator by reference to the Larimer County Noxious Weed Management Plan and in coordination with the requirements of the surface owner. OPTION 2 22 APPENDIX B SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPANY FOR NEW WELL LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINS 1. Conceptual Review Submittal Requirements. The following documents shall be submitted prior to the Conceptual Review meeting outlined in Appendix A: a) A preliminary summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; b) A preliminary site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; c) A preliminary plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; d) A preliminary plan for noise, light and dust mitigation; e) A preliminary traffic management plan; f) A preliminary Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. g) A preliminary list of permits that shall be submitted in conjunction with the APD and any exceptions proposed to be requested. h) A draft air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. i) A draft emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) Preliminary list of chemicals proposed to be disclosed through the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism and regulated through the COGCC Rule 205. k) Proposed sampling locations in accordance with the water quality monitoring plan outlined in Appendix A. 2. Submittal Requirements Prior to Commencement. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company prior to the commencement of drilling and completion: a) A response letter that outlines how staff comments from the Conceptual Review were addressed during the APD permitting process. OPTION 2 23 b) A summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; c) A site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; d) A plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; e) A plan for noise, light and dust mitigation, to the extent reasonably feasible; f) A traffic management plan, if applicable, and a reasonable bond to cover any damage to public infrastructure during active drilling and completion; g) A Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. h) Copies of all permits requested, including any exceptions. i) A final air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) A final emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. k) Updated preliminary Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. l) Baseline water quality data collected in accordance with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 3. Submittal Requirements Post Well-Completion. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company after well-completion: a) Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. b) Water quality data collected at 1, 3, and 6 year post-completion intervals, as described in Appendix A. c) Air quality and other data collected throughout the post-completion phase, as identified in Appendix A. OPTION 3 ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2012 WITH RESPECT TO OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS CONDUCTED UNDER AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC, AND EXEMPTING SUCH OPERATIONS FROM THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 12-135 OF THE CITY CODE WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 145, 2012, the City Council established a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of land use applications, permit applications and other applications seeking approval to conduct oil and gas extraction or related operations within the City (the Moratorium”); and WHEREAS, Section 12-135 of the City Code prohibits hydraulic fracturing and open pit storage in the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 2013-024 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council has approved an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013; that applies to all existing and future operations in the areas that are the subject of the Agreement, and by Resolution 2013-036 the City Council has adopted certain amendments thereto (the “Amended Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the oil and gas operations of Prospect Energy, LLC should be exempted from the Moratorium and the prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code as long as such operations are conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of saidthe Amended aAgreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 145, 2012 is hereby terminated with respect to all oil and gas operations conducted in conformance with the terms and conditions of that certain Oil and Gas Operatorthe Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC dated March 19, 2013. Section 2. The prohibitions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code shall not apply to oil and gas operations conducted by Prospect Energy, LLC that are governed by the Amended Agreement as long as Prospect Energy, LLC conducts itssuch operations in conformance with the terms and conditions of that certain Oil and Gas Operatorthe Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect Energy, LLC, dated March 19, 2013, and provided further OPTION 3 Section 3. That in the event that a conflict exists between the provisions contained in Section 12-135 of the City Code and the provisions of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall control. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of March, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of May, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk OPTION 3 **REDLINE/STRIKE-OUT SHOW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 3 RESOLUTION 2013-036 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC WHEREAS, Prospect Energy, LLC (“Prospect”) is engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration and extraction in the City and operates existing wells in an area known as the “Fort Collins Field,” which area is shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Prospect has leased certain additional lands in the City for the purpose of expanding its operations, which lands are shown on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and referenced as the Undeveloped Area or “UDA”; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 2013-024, approving an Oil and Gas Operator Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City and Prospect, which Agreement has been fully executed by both parties; and WHEREAS, the Agreement governs any new wells spudded by Prospect during the term of the Agreement that are located within the Fort Collins Field or the UDA, as well as any production facilities directly associated with such new wells; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to authorize Prospect to conduct its operations on such lands, notwithstanding a moratorium that has been imposed by the City on oil and gas operations through the enactment of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, and to utilize hydraulic fracturing during the course of its operations, notwithstanding a ban imposed on such activity through the enactment of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, as long as such operations are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Agreement should be amended to: (1) clarify that Prospect, in the course of its operations, will not re-enter any plugged or abandoned wells within the area of its operation; (2) require that all exploration and drilling activities conducted by Prospect under the Agreement, as of the effective date of the Agreement, comply with the new rules of the COGCC, which will officially take effect on August 1, 2013; (3) require a setback, as described on Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, along the west and southern boundaries of the UDA from any residential area (existing at the time of execution of the Agreement) in accordance with COGCC standards of measurement; (4) require insurance coverage in the amount of $10 million per occurrence to cover pollution, cleanup and general liability during drilling through completion of any well, and ongoing general liability coverage in the amount of $5 million; (5) require that certain of the Best Management Practices apply to existing OPTION 3 **REDLINE/STRIKE-OUT SHOW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 3 wells within the City limits; and (6) state that the Amended Agreement must be executed by both parties effective on or before June 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a proposed amended Agreement between the City and Prospect to the City Council for its consideration that makes the foregoing changes (the “Amended Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Amended Agreement continues to contain strict controls on methane release and adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the approval and execution of the Amended Agreement between the City and Prospect is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Amended Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” is hereby determined by the City Council to include strict controls on methane release and to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City, and is hereby approved. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Amended Agreement on substantially the same terms and conditions as shown on Exhibit “D,” subject to such minor modifications in form or substance 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 Ordinance. Section 3. That the Amended Agreement may only be further amended by the City Council by resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 21st day of May A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk UDA Outline With Setbacks Setback Boundary 1,000’ setback from lease line A B A 1,500’ setback from lease line B 1,000’ setback from Building Unit C C EXHIBIT C OPTION 3 1 AMENDED OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT THIS OIL AND GAS OPERATOR AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ___________, 2013 , by and through Prospect Energy, LLC, whose address is 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710, Denver, CO 80202 (referred to hereinafter as the “Company”), and The City of Fort Collins (referred to hereinafter as the “City”) with an address of 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80522, which may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, or individually as a “Party”. WHEREAS, the Company and its affiliates, namely, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC (“BDM”), the parent of the Company, engage in the exploration, development, production and marketing of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids in the Rocky Mountains, including the State of Colorado. The Company currently operates the Fort Collins Field (the “Field”) located in Larimer County, with certain portions of the Field located within the City, as depicted in Exhibit A, and, as such, is the only operator with active oil and gas operations within the City. The Company through its parent BDM, also holds certain leasehold interests within the City described as the Undeveloped Area (the “UDA”), as depicted in Exhibit B. WHEREAS, the Field was discovered in 1924, and has continually produced oil and associated hydrocarbons to this day. As is common with other older, once remote, oil and gas developments around the state, urban growth and subsequent annexation of certain lands by the City have encroached upon the Field. These annexations, including the Richard’s Lake subdivision (developed in the late 1990’s) and the Hearthfire subdivision (developed in the mid 2000’s), have allowed developers to place residential areas in the vicinity of active oil and gas operations. Some property lines are now within 150 feet of oil wells constructed on then-rural well pads. WHEREAS, the Field is an oil producing field unitized for waterflood operations from the Muddy Sandstone Formation (which yields the majority of the Field’s production), but the Field also produces oil from the Niobrara, Codell, Dakota, and Lyons Formations, all of which may need future development. WHEREAS, recent engineering and geological analysis indicates that certain parts of the Field may yield substantial incremental resource recovery by expanding the secondary recovery waterflood project by drilling and hydraulic fracturing new wells drilled from lands currently called Waters Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions (the “Subdivisions”). The Company is presently studying the UDA to assess whether it would support the development of mineral resources. WHEREAS, in the Field and UDA, the Company has entered into Surface Use Agreements with the surface owners, dated December 19, 1988, as amended April 19, 2001, and EXHIBIT D OPTION 3 2 March 17, 2011, respectively, which expressly govern the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Subdivisions, and other specified terms, including, but not limited to, landscaping and fencing around wells and associated production equipment. WHEREAS, the City and the Company value a balanced approach to oil and gas development that is protective of public health, safety and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources. To that end, in order to achieve those goals in a cooperative manner, the City and the Company enter into this Agreement to identify best management practices (“BMPs”) for the Company’s future drilling operations within the City’s boundaries. WHEREAS, the Field extends beyond the City limits and the Company, as a responsible oil and gas operator, has installed a vapor recovery unit at its existing production facility located just south of Douglas Road (the “Fort Collins Tank Battery”) as shown in the Exhibit A attached hereto which lies outside of the City limits. All water, oil and gas produced from any New Well, as defined herein, and located in the Field, will flow into existing or future pipelines to the Fort Collins Tank Battery where gas will be captured and sent to the thermal oxidizer for destruction. Equipment, both at the Fort Collins Tank Battery and within City limits, will capture and destroy at least 98% of any methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC). WHEREAS, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, C.R.S. §34-60-101 et. seq. (the “Act”), authorizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC” or “Commission”) to adopt statewide rules and regulations, which the Commission has done. Further, the Commission continues to consider changes to the rules and regulations. WHEREAS, on December 18, 2012, by the adoption of Ordinance 145, 2012, the City Council imposed a temporary moratorium until July 31, 2013 on the acceptance, processing and approval of any land use applications relating to new oil and gas development (the “Moratorium”). WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, the City Council enacted Sec. 12-135 of the City Code prohibiting the use of hydraulic fracturing in the City, as well as the storage in open pits of solid or liquid wastes and /or flowback (the “Ban”) and, through the enactment of City Code Sec. 12-136, exempted from the Ban any oil or gas wells or pad sites existing within the City as of February 19, 2013, that become the subject of an operator agreement between the operator of the same and the City, as long as such agreement includes strict controls on methane release and, in the judgment of the City Council, adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. OPTION 3 3 WHEREAS, by Resolution ______, the City Council has approved this Oil and Gas Operator Agreement with the Company, and the Parties agree to the terms and conditions contained below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, including in the recitals, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Effective Date. When this Agreement is presented to the City Council for its consideration, City staff will also present to the City Council an ordinance exempting all Company operations within the areas described in Exhibits “A” and “B” from the Moratorium and the Ban, which exemption will continue in effect as long as the Company’s operations are conducted in accordance with this Agreement. The Effective Date of such ordinance shall be the “Effective Date” of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be void and of no effect as of August May 1June 15, 2013, unless this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties on or before such date such ordinance has been approved by the City Council and has taken effect on or before said date. 2. The Company’s Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) within City Limits. The Company shall include the BMPs listed in Appendix A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, submitted to the Commission for a ”New Well”. For the purposes of this provision, “New Well” shall mean any Company-operated well spudded during the term of this Agreement, and located on either a currently existing well pad or a New Well pad that is located within the City limits, and a “New Well Pad” shall mean any area that is directly disturbed during the drilling and subsequent operation of a New Well, including any production facilities directly associated with such well, and its associated Well Pad, insofar as it covers lands located in the City limits. The BMPs shall apply to all New Wells drilled by the Company while this Agreement is effective. The Company shall not drill on any plugged and abandoned well pad sites. For the purposes of this Agreement, a New Well shall not include the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well; accordingly, the re-entry of a previously plugged and abandoned well is not allowed. 3. City Regulatory Approvals. The Company shall not be required to obtain any project development plan or final plan approval from the City to conduct its oil and gas operations within the City limits, as long as the Company complies with the terms and conditions contained herein, and this Agreement shall control all oil and gas operations conducted by the Company within the City limits. Prior to the submission of a COGCC Form 2 and/or Form 2A to the COGCC, the Company shall meet with the City to review the proposed oil and gas operation to ensure compliance with this Agreement, all applicable state and federal regulations, and any site- specific concerns, which concerns may include overall project impacts and economically and technically feasible mitigation measures or BMPs related to field design and infrastructure OPTION 3 4 construction to minimize potential adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare. At such time, if at all, that the City and Larimer County, Colorado (the “County”) enter into a written agreement that authorizes the City to regulate the oil and gas operations of the Company within the Growth Management Area, such operations shall thereafter be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall be subject to the City’s regulatory authority as provided in this Agreement. “Growth Management Area” shall be as described in that certain Intergovernmental Agreement entered into by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County on June 24,2008, nunc pro func [sic] October 17, 2006. 4. Operations on Existing Facilities. For any Facility owned by the Company and existing prior to the Effective Date and located within the City limits, the Parties hereby agree that the Company may perform routine maintenance operations on said Facility and perform such operations the Company deems prudent and necessary, including, but not limited to, stimulating existing wells through hydraulic fracturing and temporarily storing chemicals on existing well pads for that purpose. The Company agrees to conduct such operations as a prudent operator in accordance with the rules and regulation of the COGCC; however, the Company shall not be subject to the BMP’s as attached hereto, except for Appendix A paragraphs 201(j) and 201(k) thereof. “Facility” as used in this provision shall include wells, pipelines, and all equipment necessary and appurtenant to such wells and pipelines. 5. Term. This Agreement is effective upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the Effective Date, at which time the Agreement shall be automatically renewed and extended for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until either Party elects to terminate the Agreement at the end of the then current five (5) year term by providing written notice of such intent to the other party at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of said term. 6. Force Majeure. Neither Party will be liable for any delay or failure in performing under this Agreement in the event and to the extent that the delay or failure arises out of causes beyond a Party’s reasonable control, including, without limitation, war, civil commotion, act of God, strike or other stoppage (whether partial or total) of labor, or any law, decree, regulation, or order of any government or governmental body (including any court or tribunal). 7. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each Party represents that the undersigned have the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind the Parties to the terms and conditions contained herein. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument executed by both Parties hereto. 8. Successors and Assigns. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and extend to the City and the Company, and the Company’s successors and assigns. OPTION 3 5 9. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except for the rights of enforcement by the Commission with respect to the BMPs, this Agreement is not intended to, and does not create, any right, benefit, responsibility or obligation that may be enforced by any non-party. Additionally, nothing in the Agreement shall entitle any third party to any claims, rights or remedies of any kind. 10. Notices. All notices and other correspondence related to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by: (i) certified mail with return receipt, (ii) hand delivery with signature or delivery receipt provided by a third party courier service (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.), (iii) fax transmission if verification of receipt is obtained, or (iv) email with return receipt, to the designated representative of the Party as indicated below. A Party may change its designated representative for notice purposes at any time by written notice to the other Party. The initial representatives of the Parties are as follows: City: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attn: City Manager Telephone: 970-416-2253 Fax: 970-224-6107 Email: datteberry@fcgov.com Company: Prospect Energy, LLC 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1710 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Scott D. Hall, Manager Telephone: 303-973-3228, ext. 223 Fax: 303-346-4893 Email: sdhall@bdminerals.com 11. Default; Remedies. If either party believes that the other Party has failed to comply with any provision of this Agreement, or if any other kind of dispute arises under any provision of this Agreement that cannot be resolved by good faith negotiation between the Parties, the Party claiming that a breach of this Agreement has occurred or seeking resolution of any other dispute under this Agreement shall send written notice to the other Party, specifying its position in the matter and invoking the dispute resolution process in this section. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of delivery of such notice, the Parties shall meet to resolve the matter described in the notice. If either Party believes that mediation would be advantageous in connection with such meeting, or if a resolution of the matter cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to make a reasonable effort to work through and with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if either Party believes that the dispute will OPTION 3 6 not otherwise be resolved in a sufficiently prompt and effective manner, such Party may, at its discretion, take such legal action and seek such legal or equitable remedies as it determines to be appropriate or necessary to protect and enforce its rights under this Agreement. Such remedies may include, without limitation, an injunction to stop an alleged violation or an order requiring the performance of all acts and things required to be performed hereunder by the other Party. 12. Integration Clause: This Agreement, along with all exhibits and appendices attached hereto encompasses the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the Parties, whether oral or written. 13. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado without reference to its conflicts of laws provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by a duly authorized representative on the day and year first written above. THE CITY: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION By: _____________________________________ Darin Atteberry, City Manager ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Deputy City Attorney THE COMPANY: PROSPECT ENERGY, LLC By (signature): _________________________________________ Scott Hall, CEO OPTION 3 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Map of the Fort Collins Field and City boundaries Exhibit B - Map of the Undeveloped Acreage (UDA) and City Boundaries Appendix A – List of BMP’s Appendix B – Submittal Requirements Appendix C - UDA Outline with Setbacks OPTION 3 8 APPENDIX A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINS Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the Company shall include the best management practices listed below on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, and Oil and Gas Location Assessments, Form 2A, (for New Well Pads only), submitted to the Commission for New Wells the Company drills after the Effective Date within the city limits of Fort Collins. Additionally, certain of the paragraphs below shall also apply to existing wells within the City (but not to existing wells within the City’s extraterritorial Growth Management Area) but only if express language is included in such paragraphs extending them to existing wells. 1. Regulations. The Company shall comply with all applicable state, and federal regulations in addition to the terms of this agreement and the Best Management Practices included below. For aAny exploration or drilling activity conducted by the Company must comply with the revised rules adopted by the COGCC on January 9, 2013, even though such rules will not officially take effect until August 1, 2013, and as such rules may be amended thereafter..; provided, however, that along the south and west boundaries of the UDA, a 1,000 foot setback from residential areas existing at the time of execution of this Agreement shall be required. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, Company agrees that the center of the wellhead for a New Well shall not be located closer than 1,000 feet to the western lease line of the UDA acreage covering the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 68 West; nor closer than 1,500 feet to the western lease line of the UDA acreage covering the SE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 68 West; nor at any location on the UDA acreage located in the NE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 68 West that is closer than 1,000 feet to a Building Unit (as such term is defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to be adopted effectively as of August 1, 2013) which if such Building Unit is located south of the southern UDA lease line located in the NE 1/4 of said Section 4. (See Appendix C for graphic description.) Whichever regulation is most stringent shall apply. The City agrees that it will not impose any fine on the Company for violation of a local regulation if the activity or condition that created the violation is also subject to regulation by the COGCC, so that the violation could result in the imposition of a fine by the COGCC. 2. Setbacks for New Wells. It is the intent of the Company to maximize equipment and wellhead setbacks from occupied buildings and residences beyond the setbacks required by the COGCC to the extent feasible and practicable. The Parties recognize that a portion of the Field is within the Fort Collins City Limits and as such, development has occurred within the already established Field. The surface OPTION 3 9 owner has obtained permitted plats for residential areas in the vicinity of existing oil and gas activities, including a constructed city park and contemplated building units and public roads within three hundred fifty (350) feet of an existing well. Further, the Parties acknowledge that the Commission rules require a minimum of five hundred (500) feet safety setback for New Well construction from a building unit and one thousand feet (1,000) from a high occupancy building. Any New Wells drilled shall conform to the Commission setback rules then in effectas established effective August 1, 2013, and as such rules may be amended thereafter. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, Company agrees that the center of the wellhead for a New Well shall not be located closer than 1,000 feet to the western lease line of the UDA acreage covering the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 68 West; nor closer than 1,500 feet to the western lease line of the UDA acreage covering the SE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 68 West; nor at any location on the UDA acreage located in the NE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 68 West that is closer than 1,000 feet to a Building Unit (as such term is defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to be adopted effectively as of August 1, 2013) only if such Building Unit is located south of the southern UDA lease line located in the NE 1/4 of said Section 4. (See Appendix C for graphic description.) In the Fort Collins Field, New Wells shall be constructed on existing Well Pads, which due to previous setback requirements, and City approval of residential development, do not conform to five hundred (500) feet setbacks, and are given an exemption from the Commission in the Rules now in effect. The Parties recognize the existence of a Surface Use Agreement (the “SUA”) between the Company and the surface owner which expressly governs the locations of wells and associated facilities within the Water’s Edge, Richard’s Lake and Hearthfire subdivisions (the “Subdivisions”), and that certain terms found in the SUA may affect Commission setbacks and other Commission rules. 3. Conceptual Review. No less than thirty (30) days prior to the submission of an Application for a Permit to Drill, the Company agrees to schedule a meeting with the City to review the proposed new well or drilling activity. The goal of this meeting shall be for staff and the applicant to review the proposed oil and gas operation in a manner that ensures compliance with the operator agreement and applicable state and federal regulations. This pre-submittal meeting shall also allow the applicant and staff to explore site-specific concerns, to discuss project impacts and potential mitigation methods including field design and infrastructure construction to minimize impacts, to discuss coordination of field design with other existing or potential development and operators, to identify sampling and monitoring plans for air and water quality, and other elements of OPTION 3 10 the operator agreement as contained in Appendices A and B. Based upon the foregoing, applicants are encouraged to conduct the pre-submittal meeting with the City prior to completing well siting decisions, to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail notice of the pending Application for a Permit to Drill no more than ten (10) days after the conceptual review meeting has taken place. The Company shall reimburse the City for the costs of the mailing. Owners of record shall be ascertained according to the records of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, unless more current information is made available in writing to the City prior to the mailing of the notices. Notice of the pending application shall include reference to the neighborhood meeting, if applicable, and be made as follows: ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within five hundred (500) feet of a proposed gathering line; ⼀ To the surface owners of the parcels of land within two thousand six hundred forty (2,640) feet of the parcel on which the oil and gas operation is proposed to be located; and ⼀ To persons registered in writing with the City as representing bona fide neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowners' associations within the area of notification. 5. Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign, giving notice to the general public of the proposed development. For parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6(D) of the City’s Land Use Code. Such signs shall be provided by the City and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations reasonably calculated by the City to afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within ten (10) days following the Conceptual Review meeting. 6. Neighborhood Meetings. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any New Well, even on existing Well Pads, that requires an Application for a Permit to Drill. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 above. The Company shall attend the neighborhood meeting. The City shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the neighborhood meeting and shall hold the meeting in the vicinity of the proposed development. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting shall be prepared by the City. The written summary shall be included in the Local Government Designee (LGD) comments provided to the COGCC at the time of the public hearing or permit review to consider the Application for a Permit to Drill. OPTION 3 11 7. Notification to the City and the public regarding commencement of operations. Prior to the commencement of any new drilling operations, the Company shall provide to the City Manager for posting on the website the information outlined in Appendix B regarding commencement of operations, which the Company may revise from time-to-time during operations, with prior approval from the City. 8. Inspections. The City shall have the right to inspect the Company’s operations and its sites during business hours, upon the giving of twenty-four (24) hour advance written notice to the Company. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. City hereby acknowledges that nothing herein shall grant the City authority to assess fees for the inspection of the operations conducted by Company hereunder. 9. Containment berms. The Company shall utilize steel-rim berms around tanks and separators at new Well Pads. All berms and containment devices shall be inspected at regular intervals and maintained in good condition. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment area encloses a fired vessel. Refer to American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices, API RP - D16. a) Containment berms shall be constructed of steel rings, designed and installed to prevent leakage and resist degradation from erosion or routine operation. b) Secondary containment for tanks shall be constructed with a synthetic or engineered liner that contains all primary containment vessels and flowlines and is mechanically connected to the steel ring to prevent leakage. c) For locations within five hundred (500) feet and upgradient of a surface water body, tertiary containment, such as an earthen berm, is required around production facilities. 10. Closed Loop Pitless Systems for the Containment and/or Recycling of Drilling and Completion Fluids. Wells shall be drilled, completed and operated using closed loop pitless systems for containment and/or recycling of all drilling, completion, flowback and produced fluids. 11. Anchoring. All equipment at drilling and production sites shall be anchored to the extent necessary to resist flotation, collapse, lateral movement, or subsidence. All guy line anchors left buried for future use shall be identified by a marker of bright color not less than four (4) feet in height and not greater than one (1) foot east of the guy line anchor. The first sentence of this paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 12. Burning. No open burning shall occur on the site of any oil and gas operation. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. OPTION 3 12 13. Chains. Traction chains from heavy equipment shall be removed before entering a City street. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 14. Chemical disclosure and storage. The City shall be provided, in table format, the name, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, volume, storage, containment and disposal method for all drilling and completion chemicals (solids, fluids, and gases) used on the Well Pad. Fracture chemicals shall be uploaded onto the Frac Focus website. The Company shall not permanently store hydraulic fracturing chemicals, flowback from hydraulic fracturing, or produced water in the City limits. 15. Color. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non-contrasting, non- reflective color, to blend with the surrounding landscape and, with colors that match the land rather than the sky. The color should be slightly darker than the surrounding landscape. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells when such wells are repainted for general maintenance purposes. 16. Cultural and Historical Resource Protection. If a significant surface or sub-surface archaeological site is discovered during construction, the Company shall be responsible for immediately contacting the City to report the discovery. If any disturbance of the resource occurs, the Company shall be responsible for mitigating the disturbance to the cultural or historical property through a data recovery plan approved by the City. 17. Discharge valves. Open-ended discharge valves on all storage tanks, pipelines and other containers shall be secured where the operation site is unattended or is accessible to the general public. Open-ended discharge valves shall be placed within the interior of the tank secondary containment. 18. Dust suppression. Dust associated with on-site activities and traffic on access roads shall be minimized throughout construction, drilling and operational activities such that there are no visible dust emissions from access roads or the site to the extent practical given wind conditions. No produced water or other process fluids shall be used for dust suppression. The Company will avoid dust suppression activities within three hundred (300) feet of the ordinary high water mark of any waterbody, unless the dust suppressant is water. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for any chemical based dust suppressant shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to use. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 19. Electric equipment. Electric-powered engines for motors, compressors, and drilling equipment and for pumping systems shall be used in order to mitigate noise and to reduce emissions when feasible. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 20. Emergency preparedness plan. The Company is required to develop an emergency preparedness plan for each specific facility site, which shall be in compliance with the OPTION 3 13 International Fire Code. The plan shall be filed with the Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins Office of Emergency Management and updated on an annual basis or as conditions change (responsible field personnel change, ownership changes, etc.). This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. The emergency preparedness plan shall consist of at least the following information: a) Name, address and phone number, including twenty-four (24)-hour emergency numbers for at least two persons responsible for emergency field operations. b) An as-built facilities map in a format suitable for input into the City’s GIS system depicting the locations and type of above and below ground facilities including sizes, and depths below grade of all oil and gas gathering and transmission lines and associated equipment, isolation valves, surface operations and their functions, as well as transportation routes to and from exploration and development sites, for emergency response and management purposes. The information concerning pipelines and isolation valves shall be held confidentially by the City's Office of Emergency Management and the Battalion Chief, and shall only be disclosed in the event of an emergency or to emergency responders. The City shall deny the right of inspection of the as-built facilities maps to the public or for the training of emergency responders pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-72-204. c) Detailed information addressing each reasonable potential emergency that may be associated with the operation. This may include any or all of the following: explosions, fires, gas, oil or water pipeline leaks or ruptures, hydrogen sulfide or other toxic gas emissions, or hazardous material vehicle accidents or spills. A provision that any spill outside of the containment area, that has the potential to leave the facility or to threaten waters of the state, or as required by the City- approved Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be reported to the local emergency dispatch and the COGCC Director in accordance with COGCC regulations. d) Detailed information identifying access or evacuation routes, and health care facilities anticipated to be used. e) A project specific emergency preparedness plan for any project that involves drilling or penetrating through known zones of hydrogen sulfide gas. f) Detailed information showing that the Company has adequate personnel, supplies, and training to implement the emergency response plan immediately at all times during construction and operations. OPTION 3 14 g) The Company shall have current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals used or stored on a site. The MSDS sheets shall be provided immediately upon request to City officials, a public safety officer, or a health professional. h) The plan shall include a provision establishing a process by which the Company engages with the surrounding neighbors to educate them on the risks of the on-site operations and to establish a process for surrounding neighbors to communicate with the Company. i) All training associated with the Emergency Preparedness plan shall be coordinated with the City’s Office of Emergency Management and Poudre Fire Authority. j) A provision obligating the Company to reimburse the appropriate emergency response service providers for costs incurred in connection with any emergency in accordance with Colorado State Statutes. 21. Air quality. The Company must comply with emissions regulations governed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). Air emissions from wells shall be in compliance with the permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Section 7, C.R.S., COGCC Rule 805, and all state and federal regulations for the control of fugitive dust, and control of ozone, ozone precursors, methane, and hazardous air pollutants by the Larimer County Public Health Department, and the CDPHE-APCD. The Company must comply with 40 CFR Subpart OOOO as published on August 16, 2012 (Quad O). Subparagraphs (j) and (k) shall also apply to existing wells. a) General Duty to Minimize Emissions. The Company shall incorporate in the development plan; operations, procedures, and field design features to the maximum extent feasible that minimize air pollutant emissions including but not limited to: 1) Consolidation of product treatment and storage facilities 2) Centralization of compression facilities 3) Liquids gathering and water delivery systems 4) Telemetric control and monitoring systems 5) Pipeline infrastructure prior to well completion. b) In the UDA, the Company shall utilize a high-low pressure vessel (HLP) and vapor recovery unit (VRU) for New Wells that are placed on production. The Company may remove the VRU at such time it determines that the VRU system is no longer necessary due to reduced emission recoveries and/or efficiencies, but no OPTION 3 15 earlier than one (1) year after the New Well is placed on production. The Company may opt to capture gas and send through a thermal oxidizer in lieu of a HLP and VRU. c) Plunger lifts are not typically used in the Fort Collins Field due to insufficient gas. However if there is future use of plunger lifts, emissions shall be controlled from the motor control valve using low bleed pneumatic controllers. d) There will be no uncontrolled venting of methane. All gas vapors shall be captured to the extent practicable. Vapor capture equipment shall operate at ninety-eight percent (98%) efficiency or better. There are no gas sales lines in the Fort Collins field because the quantity and quality of gas is low and not marketable. If salable gas were to occur in the UDA, a sales line shall be constructed. e) Flaring during drilling and completions: During well completion, the capture and beneficial use of natural gas is preferred over flaring. Minimal flaring may occur in the Fort Collins field, because there is minimal gas in the field. Flaring shall be continuously monitored on-site by the Company, under twenty-four (24) hour watch and is regulated by COGCC Rules 317, 805B(3)B, and 912. No venting of gas may occur, except under COGCC Green Completion Practices (Rule 805 B(3)B), or in very limit cases under Rule 912 with the COGCC Director approval. f) Flaring during production operations: 1) The flare shall be fired with natural gas and shall be operated with a ninety eight (98) percent or higher VOC destruction efficiency. 2) The flare shall be designed and operated in a manner that shall ensure no visible emissions, pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 60.18(f), except for periods not to exceed a total of five (5) minutes during any two (2) consecutive hours. Where applicable, flares shall also be in compliance with 5 CCR 1001-9 Regulation 7 Section XVIIB for non- condensate oil. 3) The flare shall be operated with a flame present at all times when emissions may be vented to it, pursuant to the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.18(f). 4) An automatic pilot system shall be used when feasible. Other ignition systems may include the installation and operation of a telemetry alarm system or an on-site visible indicator showing proper function. OPTION 3 16 g) Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) – The Company shall develop and maintain a leak detection and component repair program according to EPA Method 21 for equipment used in permanent operations. LDAR shall be performed on newly installed equipment, and then on an annual basis. A Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera shall be used as the preferred implementation method of EPA Method 21 as available from the state; if unavailable, other methods shall be used in compliance with this method. Upon request from the City, the Company shall implement EPA Method 21 upon additional concerns. At least once per year, the Company shall notify the City prior to FLIR camera use in case the City wishes to observe the method. h) One Time Baseline Air Quality Monitoring - the Company and the City shall split the cost for a one time Baseline Sampling and Analytical. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of Tank Battery 2) Downwind of Tank Battery 3) City Park 4) One location downtown, such as New Belgium Brewery or Wild Boar Coffee i) One Time Air Sampling During Well Completion – The Company shall conduct air sampling during well completion. The work shall be done by a third party consultant agreeable to both parties. This shall be done over a five day sampling period with each location sampled per day. The sampling shall be for one well completion in the City (City’s choice of which well completion). The sampling locations shall be as follows: 1) Upwind of well 2) Downwind of well j) Ongoing Air Quality Monitoring - Periodic air monitoring shall be performed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The Company shall perform field monitoring using the Jerome 631 XC or equivalent instrument annually, or until such time that odors are not detected past the Fort Collins Tank Battery fence line in City Limits. OPTION 3 17 k) The City may require the Company to conduct additional air monitoring as needed to respond to emergency events such as spill, process upsets, or accidental releases or in response to odor complaints in City Limits. 1) In response to emergency events that involve the potential release of hazardous air pollutants, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with Subsection i. above. 2) In response to odor complaints, the Company may be required to conduct air sampling in accordance with subsection j above or use a photo- ionization detector (PID) to measure detected levels of VOCs that exceed acute health-based exposure thresholds, or other air sampling methodology depending on the nature of the complaint. l) Air Quality Action Days. The Company shall respond to air quality Action Day advisories posted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the Front Range Area by implementing air emission reduction measures committed to in the Air Quality Mitigation Plan. Emission reduction measures shall be implemented for the duration of an air quality Action Day advisory and may include measures such as: 1) Minimize vehicle and engine idling 2) Reduce truck traffic and worker traffic 3) Delay vehicle refueling 4) Suspend or delay use of fossil fuel powered ancillary equipment 5) Postpone construction activities 22. Green completions. a) Gas gathering lines, separators, and sand traps capable of supporting green completions as described in COGCC Rule 805 shall be installed at any location at which commercial quantities of gas are reasonably expected to be produced based on existing adjacent wells within one (1) mile or well in the Fort Collins Field, whichever is greater. b) Uncontrolled venting is prohibited. c) Temporary flowback flaring and oxidizing equipment shall include the following: 1) Adequately sized equipment to handle 1.5 times the largest flowback volume of gas experienced in a one (1) mile radius (or well in the Fort Collins Field), whichever is greater; 2) Valves and porting available to divert gas to flaring and oxidizing equipment; and OPTION 3 18 3) Auxiliary fueled with sufficient supply and heat to combust or oxidize non- combustible gases in order to control odors and hazardous gases. The flowback combustion device shall be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source over the duration of flowback, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion. 4) The Company has a general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere during flowback and subsequent recovery/operation. 23. Exhaust. The exhaust from all engines, motors, coolers and other mechanized equipment shall be vented up or in a direction away from the closest existing residences. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 24. Fencing. Permanent perimeter fencing shall be installed around production equipment, and shall be secured. The main purpose of the fencing is to deter entrance by unauthorized people. The Company shall use visually interesting fencing, when feasible, but the parties recognize that there is a need for air circulation, and for the field personnel who regularly inspect the facilities to be able to identify visual operational deficiencies when driving by. Landscaping may be used for screening. If a chain link fence is required to achieve safety requirements set by the COGCC, then landscaping and other screening mechanisms shall be required that comply with the City’s Land Use Code regulations and the Company’s safety requirements. 25. Flammable material. All land within twenty five (25) feet of any tank, or other structure containing flammable or combustible materials shall be kept free of dry weeds, grass or rubbish, and shall conform to Section 315 of the International Fire Code. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 26. Floodplains. All oil and gas operations shall comply with Chapter 10 of the City Code. 27. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Company shall comply with COGCC Rule 609. In summary, this requires pre- and post-drilling testing. The rules require oil and gas operators to sample all “Available Water Sources” (owner has given consent for sampling and testing and has consented to having the sample data obtained made available to the public), with a cap of four (4) water sources, within one-half (1/2) mile radius of a proposed well, multi-well site, or dedicated injection well. Water sources include registered water wells, permitted or adjudicated springs, and certain monitoring wells. The Company agrees to the following requirements above and beyond the COGCC requirements: analyzing for dissolved metals as indicated in the Land Use Code and sampling intervals to be baseline (before drilling), post-drilling at one, three, and six years. Analytical results shall be shared with the COGCC, the City, and the landowner. OPTION 3 19 All spills, for new and existing wells, shall be managed in accordance with COGCC regulations. 28. Landscaping. In the Fort Collins Field, existing Well Pads shall be used for any New Wells and all landscaping shall be in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code standards and in compliance with the safety requirements of the Company. Existing vegetation shall be minimally impacted. In the UDA, motorized equipment shall be restricted to the Well Pad and access roads to the Well Pads. A Visual Mitigation Plan, along with fencing and landscaping shall be developed for new construction. 29. Lighting. Except during drilling, completion or other operational activities requiring additional lighting, down-lighting is required, meaning that all bulbs must be fully shielded to prevent light emissions above a horizontal plane drawn from the bottom of the fixture. A lighting plan shall be developed to establish compliance with this provision. The lighting plan shall indicate the location of all outdoor lighting on the site and any structures, and include cut sheets (manufacturer's specifications with picture or diagram) of all proposed fixtures. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 30. Maintenance of machinery. Routine field maintenance of vehicles or mobile machinery shall not be performed within three hundred (300) feet of any water body. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 31. Mud Tracking. The Company shall take all practicable measures to ensure that vehicles do not track mud or debris onto City streets. If mud or debris is nonetheless deposited on City streets, the streets shall be cleaned immediately by the Company using pressured water from a water truck. This shall be done as part of maintenance. If for some reason it cannot be done, or needs to be postponed, the LGD shall be notified of the Company’s plan for mud removal. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 32. Natural Resources – An Ecological Characterization Study shall be provided if any New Well is within 500 feet of a Natural Habitat or Feature, and if impacting these resources, mitigation plans to ensure no net resource loss per Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.1. 33. Noise mitigation. Noise mitigation measures shall be constructed along any edge of any oil and gas operation site if such edge is between the oil and gas operation and existing residential development or land which is zoned for future residential development. The noise mitigation measures shall, to the maximum extent feasible, decrease noise from the oil and gas operations to comply with the sound limitation regulations set forth in Commission Rule 802. A noise mitigation study shall be submitted with the application to demonstrate that noise will be decreased to the maximum extent feasible. 34. Pipelines. Any newly constructed or substantially modified pipelines on site shall meet the following requirements: OPTION 3 20 (a) To the maximum extent feasible, all flow lines, gathering lines, and transmission lines shall be sited a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, as well as the high-water mark of any surface water body. This distance shall be measured from the nearest edge of the pipeline. Pipelines and gathering lines that pass within 150 feet of general residential, commercial, and industrial buildings or the high water mark of any surface water body shall incorporate leak detection, secondary containment, or other mitigation, as appropriate. (b) To the maximum extent feasible, pipelines shall be aligned with established roads in order to minimize surface impacts and reduce habitat fragmentation and disturbance. (c) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall share existing pipeline rights-of-way and consolidate new corridors for pipeline rights-of-way to minimize surface impacts. (d) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall use boring technology when crossing streams, rivers, or irrigation ditches with a pipeline to minimize negative impacts to the channel, bank, and riparian areas. 35. Recordation of flowlines. All new flowlines, including transmission and gathering systems, shall have the legal description of the location recorded with the City Clerk and the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder within thirty (30) days of completion of construction. Abandonment of any recorded flowlines shall be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office within thirty (30) days after abandonment. 36. Recreational Activity Standards. The installation and operation of any oil and gas operation shall not cause significant degradation to the quality and quantity of recreational activities in the City. Methods to achieve compliance with this standard include, but are not limited to locating operations away from trails and from property used for recreational purposes, or by using existing Well Pads. 37. Removal of debris. When an oil and gas operation becomes operational, all construction-related debris shall be removed from the site for proper disposal. The site shall be maintained free of debris and excess materials at all times during operation. Materials shall not be buried or burned on-site. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 38. Removal of equipment. All equipment used for drilling, re-completion and maintenance of the facility shall be removed from the site within thirty (30) days of completion of the work, unless otherwise agreed to by the surface owner. Permanent storage of equipment on Well Pad sites shall not be allowed. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. OPTION 3 21 39. Soil Gas Monitoring – The City, at its discretion, may conduct soil gas monitoring to assess well casing integrity. This shall be typically completed within ninety (90) days of New Well completion. The City shall notify the Company prior to entering the site for soil gas monitoring. 40. Spills. Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, including the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Oil and Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Spill Control Prevention and Countermeasure plan, as applicable. If a spill or release impacts or threatens to impact surface water or a water well, the Company shall notify the affected or potentially affected owner immediately following discovery of the release, and the spill or release shall be reported to the City and to the surface water or water well owner within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the spill or release. 41. Stormwater control plan. All oil and gas operations shall comply and conform with the Fort Collins Storm Criteria Manual (FCSCM), including submission of an Erosion Control Report and Plan. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 42. Temporary access roads. Temporary access roads associated with oil and gas operations shall be reclaimed and re-vegetated to the original state. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 43. Trailers. A construction trailer or office is permitted as an accessory use during active drilling and well completion only. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 44. Transportation and circulation. All applicants for drilling and completion operations (New Wells) shall include in their applications detailed descriptions of all proposed access routes for equipment, water, sand, waste fluids, waste solids, mixed waste, and all other material to be hauled on the public streets and roads of the City. The submittal shall also include the estimated weights of vehicles when loaded, a description of the vehicles, including the number of wheels and axles of such vehicles, trips per day and any other information required by the Traffic Engineer. Preliminary information is required for this item for the Conceptual Review meeting, in accordance with Appendix B. The Company shall comply with all Transportation and Circulation requirements as contained in the Land Use Code as may be reasonably required by the City’s Traffic Engineer. 45. Wastewater and Waste Management. In the Fort Collins Field, all fluids shall be contained and there shall be no discharge of fluids, as described in the Closed Loop System and Green Completions section of this Appendix. Waste shall be stored in tanks, transported by tanker trucks, and disposed of at licensed disposal fields. In the UDA, new OPTION 3 22 secondary containment shall be constructed of steel, with sufficient perimeter and height to hold one and one-half (1.5) times the volume of the largest tank and sufficient freeboard to prevent overflow. No potential ignition sources shall be installed inside the secondary containment area unless the containment enclosed a fired vessel. The requirements for secondary containment will meet the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. No land treatment of oil impacted or contaminated drill cuttings are permitted. The use of a closed loop drilling system precludes discharge of produced water or flowback to the ground or the use of pits. Produced water or flowback will not be used for dust suppression. A copy of the field’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) will be given to the City, which describes spill prevention and mitigation practices. The Company will provide the City documentation of waste disposal and its final disposition. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 46. Water supply. The Company shall identify in the site plan its source for water used in both the drilling and production phases of operations. The sources and amount of water used in the City shall be documented and this record shall be provided to the City annually or sooner, if requested by the City Manager. The disposal of water used on site shall also be detailed including anticipated haul routes, approximate number of vehicles needed to supply and dispose of water and the final destination for water used in operation. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 47. Weed control. The Company shall be responsible for ongoing weed control at oil and gas operations, pipelines, and along access roads during construction and operation, until abandonment and final reclamation is completed per City, Larimer County or other applicable agency regulations. The appropriate weed control methods and species to be controlled shall be determined through review and recommendation by the County Weed Coordinator by reference to the Larimer County Noxious Weed Management Plan and in coordination with the requirements of the surface owner. This paragraph shall also apply to existing wells. 48. The Company shall, with respect to the initial drilling of a New Well through completion, provide liability insurance that covers pollution, cleanup and general liability in the amount of $10,000,000 per occurrence. Following completion, the Company shall provide ongoing pollution, cleanup and general liability coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, and general liability umbrella coverage in the amount of $5,000,000. OPTION 3 23 APPENDIX B SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPANY FOR NEW WELL LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT COLLINS 1. Conceptual Review Submittal Requirements. The following documents shall be submitted prior to the Conceptual Review meeting outlined in Appendix A: a) A preliminary summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; b) A preliminary site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; c) A preliminary plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; d) A preliminary plan for noise, light and dust mitigation; e) A preliminary traffic management plan; f) A preliminary Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. g) A preliminary list of permits that shall be submitted in conjunction with the APD and any exceptions proposed to be requested. h) A draft air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. i) A draft emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) Preliminary list of chemicals proposed to be disclosed through the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism and regulated through the COGCC Rule 205. k) Proposed sampling locations in accordance with the water quality monitoring plan outlined in Appendix A. 2. Submittal Requirements Prior to Commencement. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company prior to the commencement of drilling and completion: a) A response letter that outlines how staff comments from the Conceptual Review were addressed during the APD permitting process. OPTION 3 24 b) A summary of planned operations, including identified access points and operational timeline for posting to a local community information web-page; c) A site plan for site preparation, mobilization and demobilization; d) A plan for interim reclamation and revegetation of the well pad and final reclamation of the well pad; e) A plan for noise, light and dust mitigation, to the extent reasonably feasible; f) A traffic management plan, if applicable, and a reasonable bond to cover any damage to public infrastructure during active drilling and completion; g) A Visual Mitigation Plan, including but not limited to, a list of the proposed colors for the operations’ equipment, proposed fencing and screening in accordance with Appendix A. h) Copies of all permits requested, including any exceptions. i) A final air quality mitigation plan in accordance with Appendix A. j) A final emergency response preparedness plan in accordance with Appendix A. k) Updated preliminary Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. l) Baseline water quality data collected in accordance with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 3. Submittal Requirements Post Well-Completion. The following documents shall be submitted by the Company after well-completion: a) Chemical disclosure using the “Frac Focus” uploading mechanism, and Chemical Inventory per COGCC Rule 205. b) Water quality data collected at 1, 3, and 6 year post-completion intervals, as described in Appendix A. c) Air quality and other data collected throughout the post-completion phase, as identified in Appendix A. UDA Outline With Setbacks Setback Boundary 1,000’ setback from lease line A B A 1,500’ setback from lease line B 1,000’ setback from Building Unit C C APPENDIX C -Compliance with all buffer standards Existing Vegetation Minimize disturbance Preservation of existing vegetation, mitigation requirements Preservation of existing vegetation, mitigation requirements General Conditions that apply to all oil and gas operations, regardless of the review track selected Emergency Response Must have a plan in compliance with the International Fire Code - Include emergency contact information for the operator - Trigger/threshold levels identified to determine when a state of emergency should be declared - Spills shall be immediately reported - Establish a process for the operator to notify neighbors regarding risks and establish a communication process Transportation - Access roads and access points shall be provided, reviewed, and approved by the City - A traffic impact analysis shall be submitted; all street frontage shall be improved in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, including street trees, sidewalk, curb and gutter - Transportation fees and securities, i.e., bond or letter of credit, provided to ensure no damage to City streets, including any access routes Lighting Except during drilling, completion or other activities where worker safety is a concern, all lighting shall be fully shielded and not spill off the site Spills Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with local, state, and federal laws Chemical Disclosure All Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be provided to the City and Emergency Personnel compressors Required for pumping units and compressors Required for pumping units and compressors Green Completions Must ensure no significant degradation Capture gas during completion or use completion combustion devices rather than flare or vent Capture gas during completion or use completion combustion devices rather than flare or vent Air Quality Monitoring Must ensure no significant degradation of air quality Baseline and well completion monitoring required, and additional post-completion testing may be required if changes in air quality are identified Baseline and well completion monitoring required, and additional post-completion testing may be required if changes in air quality are identified prior to the hearing Public Comments Written comments can be provided prior to or at the public hearing Residents and affected parties can testify at the public hearing Decision-making authority Planning and Zoning Board approval Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all operations must be 500’ from an occupied structure, water well, Natural Area or City Park and 150’ from any property line