Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 06/04/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDA
Karen 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 June 4, 2013 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. No proclamations are scheduled. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Page 2 3. AGENDA REVIEW: • City Manager Review of Agenda. • Consent Calendar Review. This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item No. 23) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No. 29) 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 19. 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 May 7, 2013 Regular Meeting and the May 14, 2013 Adjourned Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is a request for an appropriation of $33,000 to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program from prior years in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund (KFCG). The Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program is a highly successful financial incentive program for encouraging the sustainable revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures. The Program was funded with Keep Fort Collins Great funds in the amount of $25,000 each year for 2013-2014. However, this year alone, the popular program received over $65,000 in loan funding requests from 12 applicants for 24 projects costing over $206,200 in materials and services. Without Rehabilitation Loan Program funding, many of these projects could not proceed. The request is for the use of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created by the 2012 unspent Design Assistance Program (DAP) budget. Both the Loan Program and the DAP were funded in 2012 from KFCG - Other Community Priorities. These two incentive programs are closely linked sub-programs of the Historic Preservation Program, and provide a continuum of financial support for qualified historic preservation projects. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, changes City Code Section 4-196 from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. On February 19, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013, amending Chapter 4 of the City Code decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. This change was intended to include all animal offenses that constitute neighborhood nuisances. After further deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with an animal control officer as a criminal misdemeanor. Staff recommends changing this Code section from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code Related to the Service of a Civil Citation. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is an effort to correct an inadvertent change that occurred with a previous Code change. This amendment will provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil infractions. This will apply to a second or subsequent violation within a twelve (12) month period for the same violation. This process already applies for Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits, so this change would make the process consistent for civil infractions. Additionally, this Code change specifies that a civil citation may be issued immediately for animal code violations. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, makes two minor changes to the Code provisions relating to Municipal Court Referees. First, it removes the residency requirement for such Referees from Section 19-36 so that the Assistant Municipal Judge, who lives outside the City limits, can serve as a back-up Referee, especially on animal infraction cases. Second, it revises Section 19-41 so that all Referees have the same authority to reduce or waive penalties and assessments when appropriate. It removes the previous distinction between the authority of the Parking Referee and the Civil Infraction Referee, which was creating some confusion. Page 4 11. to Second Non-City Reading Utilities of Ordinance in Annexed No. Areas 073, and 2013 Correct Amending Internal the References. City Code to Grant Revocable Permits This that a Ordinance, non-City utility unanimously provider adopted apply for on a First permit Reading to continue on May providing 21, 2013, electric eliminates service the to requirement properties annexed upon transfer into the of service. city. A revocable permit would automatically be granted at annexation and revoked The technicalminor second revisions proposed that Code clarify change an existing would standard allow the or improve Utilities conformity Executive toward Director best to adopt engineering practices. 12. Adoption Second Reading of Minor of Rule Ordinance Revisions, No. Clarifications, 074, 2013, Amending and Interconnection the City Code Project to Authorize Standards. Administrative This Executive Ordinance, Director unanimously authority to approve adopted temporary on First exemptions Reading on or May technical 21, 2013, modifications grants the to the Utilities City’s equipment various electric testing utility or research regulations partnerships. for the purpose of supporting City-managed special pilot projects, This operations authority or services will not be provided extended to to Utility allow customers exemptions not of participating such regulations in testing and standards or research to projects. on going 13. Fund Second for Reading the Platte of Ordinance River Power No. Authority 076, 2013, Transmission Appropriating Line Unanticipated Relocation Revenues Project Located in the General on the Woodward Property. Council Woodward approved agreed the to advance Woodward funds incentive to support package the relocation in April 2013. of the As Platte a part River of Power that agreement,Authority appropriates (PRPA) Transmission $1,297,080 Line. from This the Ordinance, General Fund unanimously Reserves for adopted the relocation on First Reading of the PRPA on May transmission 21, 2013, line. that Woodward's Immediate appropriation building site plans is needed may to remain allow on the schedule. transmission Delay line in relocation authorizing to the move appropriation forward so may as design necessitate and construct the need the for relocated PRPA to construct permanent and transmission remove a temporary line. This transmission effort would require line as well that PRPA incur additional costs. 14. Waste First Reading Reduction of Ordinance and Diversion No. 077, Projects 2013 Approved Appropriating by the Prior Waste Year Innovation Reserves in Program. the General Fund for This accountreserve Ordinance into the shifts City’s $135,General 560 that Fund has account accumulated so that in the the money Waste can Innovation be used Program’s for the purposes trash intended. from Revenues municipal operations are paid into for the disposal Waste Innovation in the Larimer Program County by Landfill. City departments The fund that is designated “self haul” to landfill. pay for Unspent projects funds that enhance from several these previous same departments’ years had been ability moved to divert into more a “reserve” waste away account; from this the action moves the funds back into the General Fund. 15. Stormwater First Reading Fund, of Ordinance and Authorizing No. 078, the 2013 Transfer Appropriating of Existing Unanticipated Appropriations Grant Revenue from the into Flood the Mapping/Warning Capabilities. Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project for Early Flood The funds Stormwater will be used Utility to enhance has received early a flash grant flood from the warning State capabilities of Colorado due totaling to the $17,increased 881. The risk grant of flooding caused by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used for the match of $5,960. Page 5 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The City will use a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (Soapstone Prairie) as match towards the grant, as well as management funds currently obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico. This will be the fifth such match authorized as the City, in partnership with RMBO, has been successful on four previous grant applications. The previous partnership efforts have resulted in a broader understanding of the grasslands bird species that nest on Soapstone Prairie and the contiguous Meadow Springs Ranch, and has contributed to the conservation of these species’ winter ranges in Mexico. 17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement. Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law. Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts by 11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district receives by 6.9 percent. The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years. 19. Resolution 2013-051 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District. This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2012 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority. END CONSENT Page 6 20. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 21. Staff Reports. A. Mason Minute 22. Councilmember Reports. 23. 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. 24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into Standard Power Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic System Owners for up to 20 Years. (staff: Lisa Rosintoski; 5 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers in support of Fort Collins renewable energy commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The basis of the FCSP3 is a fixed-price, 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fort Collins Utilities and photovoltaic system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through the budget process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements. 25. Resolution 2013-052 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. (staff: Courtney Levingston; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. On April 4, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Joel Rovnak seeking to remand the decision back to the Planning and Zoning Board. Page 7 On May 21, 2013, City Council voted 5 - 0 (Poppaw absent, Campana withdrawn) upholding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council is required to adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. (staff: Josh Weinberg, Karen McWilliams; 10 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road. 27. Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. (staff: Seth Lorson; 15 minute staff presentation; 2 hour discussion) On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish the existing King’s Auto building at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900 square-foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square-feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry Station in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District. The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; (b) the ability to provide off-site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and (d) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces. On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading, and substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application. 28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River District Block One Mixed Use Development. (staff: Helen Matson, Craig Foreman; 10 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion) Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Encompass”) is a mixed use development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC (“LB LLC”). Several easements are required for this project. These easement interests are needed for improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas. 29. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 30. Other Business. 31. Adjournment. A. Motion to adjourn to June 11, 2013. Page 8 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. DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Wanda Nelson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 7 Regular Meeting and the May 14 Adjourned Meeting. May 7, 2013 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 7, 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, Harris, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 32, Resolution 2013-041, Concerning the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds (North College Avenue Project), Series 2013, Declaring the City Council’s Present Intent to Appropriate Funds to Replenish the Reserve Fund Securing Such Bonds, if Necessary; and Authorizing a Cooperation Agreement and Other Actions Taken in Connection Therewith, is being postponed to allow for the new Finance Committee and Councilmembers to collect information concerning those bonds. Citizen Participation Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, suggested fines and other penalties should be implemented for large group parties. He discussed tax increment financing and suggested a one-to-one property tax rebate for taxing entities and urged Council to oppose the on-campus stadium. Kelly Giddens, Wellington resident, requested that public comment be allowed at the May 21 meeting regarding the operator agreement with Prospect Energy. Maya Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, requested that public comment be allowed at the May 21 meeting regarding the operator agreement with Prospect Energy and requested Council consider waiving attorney-client privilege regarding the agreement. She also requested the exception for Prospect Energy be eliminated from the ban. Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, requested that public comment be allowed at the May 21 meeting regarding the operator agreement with Prospect Energy. Bryan Tribby, 525 East Drake Road, Homeward 2020, opposed the City’s ban on camping due to its negative impact on the City’s homeless population. Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, requested that public comment be allowed at the May 21 meeting regarding the operator agreement with Prospect Energy and requested that Council uphold the ban on fracking. 40 May 7, 2013 Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, discussed the tipping points for climate change and requested that the City’s environmental staff research the issue. Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Poppaw requested additional information regarding the City’s camping ban and ticketing. She expressed support for Council waiving the rules to allow for public comment regarding the operator agreement with Prospect Energy at the May 21 meeting. Councilmember Cunniff agreed with Councilmember Poppaw on both points and stated he has asked for Council to examine the Climate Action Plan with an eye towards making the goals stronger and sooner. Councilmember Troxell suggested Council meet with the new Executive Director of Homeward 2020 to discuss the City’s homeless population. Councilmember Overbeck agreed with Councilmembers Poppaw and Cunniff regarding the homeless population and public comment at the May 21 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 26 and 27, 2013 Adjourned Meetings, the April 2 and 16, 2013 Regular Meetings, and April 9, 2013 Special Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, appropriates prior year’s reserves for expenditures authorized in 2012 by Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2012. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the Design, Equipment Procurement and Implementation of a Traffic-Responsive Traffic Signal System. The City’s Traffic Operations Department was awarded a $248,370 Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to design, procure equipment and implement a traffic responsive traffic signal system at select intersections that are impacted by railroad and truck operations. The project will be implemented at intersections along North College Avenue (U.S. 287), Riverside Avenue (SH 14), Mulberry Street (SH 14) and Lemay Avenue where trains and heavy trucks impact traffic on those major streets. The project is intended to reduce traffic delays by more quickly dispersing congestion at the intersections impacted by the passing trains. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, appropriates the grant revenue described above to fund this project. 41 May 7, 2013 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Federal Department of Energy Grant Revenues in the Light and Power Fund. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, appropriates $845,323 of additional revenue related to the Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration (RDSI) project. This total includes $372,500 of additional Department of Energy grant funding, as well as $472,823 in other RDSI project revenues. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2013, Amending Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code by the Addition of a New Subparagraph (D) Pertaining to Parkway Landscaping Amendments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, amends the City’s Land Use Code to add a new administrative process for changes to parkway landscaping in approved development plans. This is a necessary follow-up to new Streetscape Standards adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013. It involves parkway landscaping in single family housing developments where approved development plans specify turfgrass in the parkways (the strips of land between street curbs and detached sidewalks). These residential parkways are part of the City-owned right-of-way, but abutting property owners are responsible for parkway landscaping. The new process makes it easier for homeowners to request changes to approved plans. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2013, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Amending Certain Provisions of the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, approves an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor regarding the I-25/SH 392 Interchange. The First Amended IGA became effective on November 27, 2012. The IGA provides that Windsor and Fort Collins will annually share property and sales tax revenue generated in the area surrounding the I-25/ SH 392 Interchange (the CAC). The amount to be shared is the amount of increased taxes in the CAC beyond the amount collected in the base year. The IGA provided that the base year would be the revenues collected in the year 2012, the year the IGA became effective. In discussions with the Town of Windsor, it was concluded that it would be more equitable if the base year for the increment calculation was 2010 rather than 2012. The tax revenues were reduced by as much as 25% in 2011 and 2012, since construction of the interchange was ongoing during that year. 2010 was the last year of tax revenues before construction began, and as such, would be a more accurate reflection of tax revenues for the purpose of determining increased increments to be divided. A similar Ordinance was adopted by the Windsor Town Board on Second Reading on March 25, 2013. 42 May 7, 2013 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Utility Easement on Springer and Williams Natural Areas to Platte River Power Authority. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, authorizes a utility easement and a temporary construction easement across the Spring and Williams Natural Areas to accommodate proposed construction of the Woodward Inc. Link-N-Greens Campus. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize the City Manager to Ban Open Burning in the City Upon Recommendation of the Fire Chief. During the spring and summer of 2012, Fort Collins and Larimer County experienced record setting fire weather following a prolonged drought. As a result, the community experienced not only the worst wildfire in the history of Larimer County, but the second largest wildfire in the history of Colorado and the second most costly season in lost homes and property. During this time, Governor Hickenlooper and the Larimer County Commissioner enacted fire bans due to the extreme fire conditions. The Fort Collins City Council also adopted a fire ban through an emergency ordinance (Emergency Ordinance No. 065, 2012). At that time, staff was directed to figure out a more efficient way to implement a fire ban and to avoid the emergency ordinance process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 16, 2013, authorized the City Manager to ban open burning. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Utility Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29, 2013, 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. 43 May 7, 2013 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. 15. 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. 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 with 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. 16. 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.” 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. 17. Resolution 2013-037 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement to Assist in the Operation and Maintenance of the HUB, a Multi-Agency Youth and Family Program. The City of Fort Collins partners with Larimer County, the City of Loveland, the Town of Estes Park, the Town of Berthoud, the Colorado State University Police Department, the Colorado State Patrol, and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office in a collective agreement to fund operations of the Larimer County Juvenile Assessment Center (known as the “HUB”). The HUB provides valuable services to both families and the law enforcement agencies of Larimer County by providing centralized screening for minors in need of services due to: • Abuse and neglect • Delinquency • High risk behaviors that are non-detainable or beyond the control of parent(s) 44 May 7, 2013 • Parent – child conflict • Drug and alcohol abuse • Runaway youth 18. Resolution 2013-038 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and Horsetooth Development, LLC. Horsetooth Development, LLC., is the developer of the Maple Hill Subdivision, a 155 acre development, and has completed all but one phase of the development. The plan expired on September 9, 2007. Accordingly, Horsetooth, LLC., has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights under Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the City Manager and City Attorney agree that the application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed Resolution would formalize the determination of vested rights. 19. Resolution 2013 -039 Making Board and Commission Liaison Assignments and Various Committee, Board and Authority Appointments. This Resolution makes Councilmember liaison assignments to boards and commissions and makes various committee, board and authority appointments. (These determinations will be made at the Council Retreat on May 3 and 4.) 20. Resolution 2013-040 Making Appointments to the Energy Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. Two vacancies currently exist on the Energy Board due to the resignation of Steven Wolley and Ross Cunniff. Since there were no applicants on file, the vacancies were advertized to recruit new applicants. Councilmembers Ross Cunniff and Wade Troxell recommend John Graham to fill one vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014 and Nick Michell to fill the other vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015. One vacancy currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the resignation of Gino Campana. Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Gerry Horak reviewed applicants on file and elected to readvertise for the opening. After conducting interviews, Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Horak recommend Jeffrey Schneider to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014. 21. Routine Deed. Quit Claim Deed from Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, near the Poudre River, adjacent to Spring Natural Area. This property will become part of the Springer Natural Area. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Harris. 45 May 7, 2013 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the Design, Equipment Procurement and Implementation of a Traffic-Responsive Traffic Signal System. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Federal Department of Energy Grant Revenues in the Light and Power Fund. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2013, Amending Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code by the Addition of a New Subparagraph (D) Pertaining to Parkway Landscaping Amendments. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2013, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Amending Certain Provisions of the First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Utility Easement on Springer and Williams Natural Areas to Platte River Power Authority. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize the City Manager to Ban Open Burning in the City Upon Recommendation of the Fire Chief. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Utility Easement to Public Service Company of Colorado. 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2013, Designating the Jessup Farm Property, 1908 South Timberline Road, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Harris. 15. 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. 16. 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.” Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 20, Resolution 2013-040 Making Appointments to the Energy Board and the Planning and Zoning Board, from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana and Overbeck. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 46 May 7, 2013 Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Weitkunat discussed Item No. 15, 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, and stated the hospitality and tourism industries are key generators of economic activity in the City of Fort Collins. She announced the week of May 18-24 being designated as Tourism Week. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry stated he would look into the homeless population issue and plan an introduction for Council to the Homeward 2020 Executive Director. Jackie Sargent, Platte River Power Authority General Manager and Barb Zar, Government and External Affairs Director, presented the 2012 PRPA Annual Report and announced Listening Sessions on Future Resources to be held in its member communities. Councilmember Troxell thanked Mayor Weitkunat and Mayor Pro Tem Horak for their work on the PRPA Board and welcomed Ms. Sargent and Ms. Zar. Ms. Sargent stated PRPA is working with its member communities to determine needs and desires regarding future resources. Norm Weaver, Energy Services Engineer, reported on the City’s solar progress and stated Fort Collins has received the Colorado Solar Energy Association Award for its Sunshot Program. Mike Gebo, Building Services, discussed the changes in permitting to encourage solar use. Tim Buchanan, City Forester, reported on the City’s receipt of the title of “Tree City USA” for the past 35 years. City Manager Atteberry commended Mr. Buchanan on his service to the City organization. Mayor Weitkunat commended Mr. Buchanan on his work with the city’s elementary schools. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, announced a public forum regarding the oil and gas industry and the operator agreement with Prospect Energy to be held May 8 at the Lincoln Center. Councilmember Overbeck commended staff for their work on the forum. Councilmember Reports Mayor Weitkunat reported on the annual Council retreat. Councilmember Cunniff reported on a tour of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit project. 47 May 7, 2013 Resolution 2013-040 Making Appointments to the Energy Board and the Planning and Zoning Board, Adopted The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two vacancies currently exist on the Energy Board due to the resignation of Steven Wolley and Ross Cunniff. Since there were no applicants on file, the vacancies were advertized to recruit new applicants. Councilmembers Ross Cunniff and Wade Troxell recommend John Graham to fill one vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014 and Nick Michell to fill the other vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015. One vacancy currently exists on the Planning and Zoning Board due to the resignation of Gino Campana. Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Gerry Horak reviewed applicants on file and elected to readvertise for the opening. After conducting interviews, Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Horak recommend Jeffrey Schneider to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2014.” Councilmember Cunniff asked whether diversity regarding development interests was considered when discussing candidates for the Planning and Zoning Board position. Mayor Weitkunat replied many factors, including qualifications, are considered during the interview process. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2013-040. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2013, Designating the Jessup Farm Property, 1908 South Timberline Road, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Adopted on Second Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) on First Reading on April 16, 2013, designates the Jessup Farm Property at 1906 Timberline Road as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Gino Campana, is initiating this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.” Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. 48 May 7, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Ordinance No. 065, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Cunniff, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consideration of the Appeal of the February 25, 2013 Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Project Development Plan at 621 South Meldrum Street, Hearing Officer Decision Upheld The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 13, 2013, an Administrative Hearing was held to consider approval of the Project Development Plan at 621 South Meldrum Street. 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. The two conditions are as follows: a. The Modification of Standard (reduction in setback from five feet to three feet) shall apply to the rear 78 feet of the lot only. b. If access to neighboring properties is required for construction, the Applicant and/or Owner shall obtain appropriate easements. On March 19, 2013, the Appellants submitted an Appeal of the Hearing Officer’s Decision. The Appellants assert that the Hearing Officer considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and that the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. Retaining walls and parking setbacks are a subject of this Appeal. The Applicants request to construct a multi-family building containing four units and four off-street parking spaces to be accessed from the alley. The proposed plan includes several retaining walls ranging in height from 1 to 2.5 feet. The proposed parking lot design requires one Modification of Standard to reduce the required parking setback from 5 feet to 3 feet. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION ASSERTIONS OF APPEAL The Appellants assert that the Hearing Officer considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and that the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellant. The Appellants state: 49 May 7, 2013 “We seek to reject #120020 PDP approval because concerns presented by Alan Skowron at the public hearing were not addressed. Alan stated concern of the wood retaining wall (on property line, w/in 3 feet of existing house, irrigation/swale/plantings on top). The wall presents significant risk to our house & property from rot/decay. Jeff’s engineer responded that the wall will be structurally sound because ‘deadmen’ will be installed. They did not address the issue of rot”. “Alan felt that he did not have the time or opportunity to adequately present concerns. Less than 10 minutes (of 50 minutes) were open for public discussion; most occupied by general discussion unrelated to Alan's concerns. Alan/Eric only learned about the wall proximity to our house and wall details only three days before the hearing by closely interrogating documents from the COFC website. We therefore provided additional information documenting these concerns, risks and record of correspondence w/Jeff. Please see accompanying document register.” “We seek the following outcomes from our Appeal: 1) Redesign wall to reduce rot/decay risk and pull wall back from property line to accommodate proper structural footings and base course without any construction or structural encroachment on 625 S. Meldrum Property; OR: Redesign wall to reduce rot/decay risk, provide legal agreement accepting full liability in perpetuity for the wall and damage caused by it, and provide detail of requested easement (to facilitate wall construction and proper footings/base course) on 625 S. Meldrum property to our satisfaction to obtain permission for easement. 2) Jeff acknowledged during hearing that he is now planning for additional parking on the ditch. Minimum required parking can be provided per zoning, TOD requirements without encroaching into setback. We object to the setback standard reduction from 5 feet to 3 feet.” 1 .The Hearing Officer’s Findings for the Modification of Standard request are located on page 4 of the Decision. The Hearing Officer states: “With a condition as to scope, the Modification of Standard meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. a. The Modification would not be contrary to the public good. b. The Modification will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or better than the standard without modification, because the Modification is minor and the overall project provides high quality, high performing architecture that is sensitive to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. c. The Modification would result in a substantial benefit to the City, because it accommodates off-street parking that would otherwise be infeasible, and off- street spaces will reduce on-street demand and thereby benefit neighbors without any adverse impacts. d. The Modification will not diverge form the standards of the Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the 50 May 7, 2013 entire PDP. The Modification provides appropriate massing, scale, detail, and articulation. The landscape area, in combination with the privacy fence, provides a softened landscape edge interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the south. Additionally, the Modification is along the parking drive isle, and not directly adjacent to the parking spaces, where impact of a reduced setback would be greater”. 2. Mr. Herman Feissner, engineer for the applicant, responded to the Appellants’ assertion regarding the retaining wall on page 14 of the written testimony, stating: “So, in response to some of the concerns that have been raised about the swale and the retaining wall along the south property line, approximately one-third of the total roof area of the structure would be draining to this area. The roof drains for this section of the property, or this section of the structure, would be connected to a below grade system. So that means that that water coming off the roof will stay in a pipe, it’ll go into a pipe below grade all the way to the curb in Meldrum.” Mr. Feissner continued on page 14, stating “You won’t see it on the surface, no. The only water you’ll see on the surface in that area…or water on the surface, would just be from a very small local area, it would be from the sidewalk adjacent to the building and the landscaping in that area. So, the flows in that area are negligible.” 3. During the Hearing, the Hearing Officer asked for public testimony. There was no time limit discussed for public testimony during the Hearing. 4. Notice of the Hearing was mailed to the affected property owners on January 30, 2013, 14 days prior to the Hearing. The notice provided a link to the hearing documents on the City website. SUMMARY The Hearing Officer included as a Condition that if access to neighboring properties is required for construction, the Applicant and/or Owner shall obtain appropriate easements. The Hearing Officer concluded that the P.D.P. and Modification of Standard were in compliance with the applicable standards of the Land Use Code.” City Attorney Roy reviewed the appeal process. Councilmember Troxell disclosed that his son rented a room in the appellant’s property two years ago. He stated he has had no interaction with the appellant on this issue. Councilmember Overbeck stated he attended the site visit and observed the site in comparison to the materials presented. Jason Holland, City Planner, stated the project, located at 621 South Meldrum, was approved by the Hearing Officer with two conditions. He stated the appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer considered evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading and that the Hearing Officer failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. Holland reviewed the Hearing Officer’s decision and conditions. 51 May 7, 2013 Mayor Weitkunat noted both parties have new information they wish to introduce. City Attorney Roy stated the appellant has the opportunity to introduce new evidence as long as it was described in the Notice of Appeal. Additionally, new evidence may be presented in order to answer Council questions. APPELLANT PRESENTATION Alan Skowron, appellant and property owner at 625 South Meldrum, stated the appeal has been filed due to concerns regarding a proposed wood retaining wall which were presented at the hearing and were not considered. He stated aspects of a properly designed retaining wall would encroach onto the property he owns adjacent to the subject property and would require construction access from his property. Mr. Skowron stated the City should not have approved the preliminary design, knowing there would be impacts to a neighboring property that were not agreed to by that property owner. He suggested preliminary approval of the project be subject to the following conditions: all components of the retaining wall, including the sub-grade, toe and footings do not encroach onto the 625 South Meldrum property; the wall must be properly designed and certified by a professional engineer and constructed such that it will not be subject to a high risk of failure from rot or structural failure; contractors for the applicant’s project do not require access to the property at 625 South Meldrum to construct the project; the applicant must provide legal agreement that the owners of 621 South Meldrum are responsible for all maintenance of the wall and are responsible for clean-up and return of the property at 625 South Meldrum to a pre-failure state in the event of a failure of the retaining wall; and that the variation request for the side yard setback for parking is removed. OPPONENT PRESENTATION Jeff Eggleston, applicant and property owner at 621 South Meldrum, briefly described the proposed project. Ian Shuff, Aller, Lingle, and Massey, discussed the design aspects of the project detailing the constraints of the site with respect to drainage. He discussed the architecture of the project noting its compatibility with the neighborhood. Kathy Mathis, The Birdsall Group, discussed the reduction of the side yard setback due to the necessity of drainage and desire for off-street parking. APPELLANT REBUTTAL Walt Skowron, Alan Skowron’s father, stated there were no pre-established agreements between the property owners regarding this proposed project. OPPONENT REBUTTAL Jeff Johnson, Attorney for the Applicant, stated this appeal is limited to an allegation of an unfair hearing and is quite narrow in scope. He stated the opponents believe the record is devoid of any evidence that the Hearing Officer considered false or grossly misleading evidence. He discussed the retaining wall as described in the transcript from the Administrative Hearing and argued that a fair hearing was held. 52 May 7, 2013 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilmember Troxell requested that the appellant respond to the opponent assertion that several opportunities were presented at the Administrative Hearing to further discuss the retaining wall issue. Mr. Skowron replied there were a few times when the Administrative Hearing Officer asked for comments and he did address some concerns at that time. He stated his concerns were not addressed to his satisfaction during the hearing and added he has received no correspondence from the applicant team other than a few brief emails. Mr. Skowron stated he had more than two questions after the hearing, including landscaping, parking, and the retaining wall construction. He stated the landscaping question was answered to his satisfaction; however, the aspect of decay of a wood retaining wall was not discussed to his satisfaction. Councilmember Troxell asked if Mr. Skowron was present at the Council site visit. Mr. Skowron replied his father was there on his behalf. Councilmember Troxell stated the applicant has stated the retaining wall would be made of cedar or other pressure treated wood and asked what evidence exists that the material would not last. Mr. Skowron replied his main concern is that he was not able to see the specific plans at the review meeting and stated he was given no resource for information on the actual construction of the wall. He stated he was not aware the product was pressure treated but stated he is also concerned about encroachment on his property. Mayor Weitkunat asked what role the City and staff play in the crafting and building of a project. Holland replied the review of the site plan documents is the joint responsibility of all the staff, including staff engineers with both the Stormwater Department and Engineering Department. The preliminary project plan looks to establish the basic site-planned elements, the vertical elements, the drainage elements, and the basic site components of the project. Some details are requested at the final plan stage and occasional site plan adjustments are made at this time. Mayor Weitkunat asked if the concerns being raised could be addressed at the final plan stage. Holland replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer for the reason that she did not fail to conduct a fair hearing either by considering evidence relevant to her findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading, or by failing to receive all relevant evidence. Councilmember Cunniff stated he did not hear evidence that specifically addressed the complaint about the Hearing Officer failing to consider evidence and would therefore support the motion. Councilmember Campana agreed with Councilmember Cunniff and stated the retaining wall is not likely to be at a height requiring review and stated additional landscaping is often a tradeoff for reduced side yard setbacks. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: none. 53 May 7, 2013 THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Resolution 2013-042 Approving a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC, and the Foothills Metropolitan District Regarding the Redevelopment of Foothills Mall, Adopted as Amended The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This resolution authorizes and approves the execution of a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement, by the City Manager of the City of Fort Collins, in connection with the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Project Overview Location Located within the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Adopted, September 2011), the Foothills Fashion Mall (“Foothills”) encompasses approximately 76.3 acres of property bounded generally on the north by Swallow Road, on the east by Stanford Road, on the south by Monroe Drive, and on the west by College Avenue. The project is zoned C-G General Commercial and is located in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (the “TOD District”). History The original Foothills Fashion Mall opened in 1973 and was constructed, owned, and operated by a partnership that included the Everitt Companies. The Everitt Companies developed numerous real estate projects during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s throughout Fort Collins. In 1988, Foothills was expanded to include additional anchor stores (J.C. Penney, Mervyn’s). In 1995, Foothills changed further with an expansion of the Foley’s (now Macy’s) building. The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) was created by City Council in 1982 to prevent and eliminate conditions in the community related to certain “blight factors”, as defined in Sections 31-25-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes (the “Urban Renewal Law”). Using tax increment financing (“TIF”), the URA is able to leverage public and private investment to remediate blight, which is complimentary to the City’s broader goal of promoting redevelopment and infill in targeted areas. Midtown Fort Collins has been identified as one of these targeted areas for infill and redevelopment, primarily because it includes a significant portion of the College Avenue commercial corridor and the Mason Corridor collectively referred to as the “Community Spine”. A major influence in Midtown is Foothills Mall. For the first decades of operation, the Mall was a major regional retail center that attracted shoppers from northern Colorado, southeastern 54 May 7, 2013 Wyoming, and southwestern Nebraska. The mall underwent several expansions in 1980s and 1990s, but nevertheless has experienced declining sales and increasing vacancies, partly due to increasing competition from newer retail centers in northern Colorado. The loss of two major anchor stores, Mervyn’s and JC Penny, only further contributed to the mall’s decline and solidified the revitalization of the mall as a top City priority. General Growth Properties (GGP) purchased the aging mall in 2003 with plans to revitalize and redevelop the property. Recognizing the mall has significant barriers to redevelopment, the City early on explored TIF via the URA as a potential tool to assist with its redevelopment. In the City’s 2005 Economic Action Plan, the mall is identified as the “single most important retail redevelopment initiative in the City”, and identifies the establishment of an Urban Renewal Plan as the “most effective manner for the City to assist in the redevelopment”. In 2007, the City hired a consultant to conduct an Existing Conditions Survey to determine if the area contained sufficient conditions according to Urban Renewal Law to declare it blighted. The 2007 Survey affirmed blight factors exist and declared the area blighted. City Council ultimately adopted Resolution 2007-052 and 2007-053 declaring Foothills Mall blighted and approving the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan, respectively. Unfortunately, GGP did not initiate any redevelopment activities and decided to postpone investment because of the economic environment at the time. In order to preserve the ability to use TIF in the future, City Council passed Resolution 2008-110 which repealed Resolution 2007-053 and dissolved the Foothills Mall Urban Renewal Plan. Despite this setback, redevelopment of the mall continued to be a top priority. In 2010, the City conducted a Redevelopment Study for Midtown; while this analyzed Midtown as a whole, a significant portion was dedicated to the mall and potential redevelopment scenarios that could occur. One of the action items from this Study was for staff to examine Midtown for conditions of blight and determine whether it met statutory qualifications for an Urban Renewal Area. In February 2011, as a result of the recommended action item, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-008 authorizing and directing staff to prepare an Urban Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey (Survey) for the Midtown Area, including Foothills Mall. Since the mall had been previously examined in 2007, staff conducted a basic site evaluation and determined that the blight factors cited in 2007 remained present in 2011. Ultimately, City Council adopted Resolutions 2011-080 and 2011-081 adopting the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, respectively. Conversations between the City and GGP about redevelopment of the mall continued throughout this time. However, GGP decided not to invest in the property and sold Foothills Mall and adjacent properties to Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC (the “Developer”) in July 2012. Seeing redevelopment of Foothills Mall seemed imminent, the URA sent notice mid-July to property owners and tenants within and immediately adjacent to the mall informing those parties that ownership had changed. Additionally, the notice solicited redevelopment proposals for the URA to take into consideration. Although general inquiries were received, the URA only received a formal proposal from Walton/Alberta. In September 2012, the URA sent the Walton/Alberta a formal letter selecting them as the developer for the project. 55 May 7, 2013 Project Description Alberta Development Partners in partnership with Walton Street Capital (the “Developers”) intend to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment of the Foothills Fashion Mall (the “Project”). The redevelopment will include a mixed-use redevelopment with a commercial/retail component (734,979 square feet), a commercial parking structure and up to 800 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. Retail The project proposes to deconstruct portions of existing Foothills and renovate the remaining original structure, for a 388,084 square foot, one-level, enclosed shopping mall. In addition, various free standing buildings including the Commons At Foothills Mall Building, the Shops at Foothills Mall buildings, The Plaza at Foothills Mall, the Corner Bakery, Christy Sports and the Youth Activity Center building would all be deconstructed. In their place, eight new retail buildings are proposed along South College Avenue, ranging from 9,300 square feet to 31,715 square feet in size. Internal to the site, five new retail building are proposed to be located northwest of the existing enclosed mall. These five building range from 7,636 square feet to 12,000 square feet in size. To the southeast of the existing mall, four new restaurants are proposed ranging in size from 8,088 square feet to 124,000 square feet as well as a new, two-story 24,000 square foot Foothills Activity Center to replace the Youth Activity Center. Additionally, a new 86,754 square foot entertainment and theater building is proposed located southeast of the new restaurants. The large east green area and smaller west green plazas anchor the pedestrian network. The commercial component provides a total of 3,581 parking spaces via a six level, 84,663 foot parking structure and surface parking spaces. Residential The residential component of the project proposes up to 800 multi-family units distributed among five buildings that will include a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedroom units. Current plans call for the construction of 446 residential units. The residential component of the project includes 1,422 parking space via three separate subterranean structures (858 spaces), an above ground structure (472 spaces) and 92 open surface parking stalls. The residential buildings will range in height from two- to five-stories. Generally, the residential building heights get taller as the project develops from the north to south along Stanford Road. Green Development Practices/Components The Developer is committed to developing an efficient and high performing project in an effort to meet or exceed many of the objectives identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan. It should be noted that redevelopment of the Foothills Mall will inherently achieve many significant improvements including the removal and mitigation of existing hazardous materials (Asbestos), a complete upgrade of stormwater facilities on-site, and the inclusion of updated HVAC and lighting systems, which are significantly more efficient than the existing systems. The Developer is currently engaged with the City of Fort Collins in a modified Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) in an effort to identify opportunities for improved building performance. City staff and the Developer’s design team has a scheduled half-day design charrette 56 May 7, 2013 on May 3 to identify design opportunities that will result in high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements for energy performance. The objectives of that meeting are to identify proposed design elements that go above and beyond code requirements; to collaborate on new opportunities for enhanced design features to decrease the project’s carbon impact; to quantify the project’s carbon impact, and to identify and agree on a clear plan of action to achieve a high performance project. The results of the meeting will be provided to City Council under separate cover. The Developer has committed to numerous other “green” components within the project, which are included in Attachment 1 and titled “Foothills Mall Renovation and Fort Collins Green Code Compliance.” The City of Fort Collins has provided the Developer a response to that memo with a list of enhancements and additional measures to improve the environmental sustainability of the project (Attachment 2). The Developer has agreed to comply with those measures and will be updating their memo to include the enhancements. The updated memo will be provided to City Council under separate cover. The Climate Action Plan includes a goal of diverting 50% of waste from the landfills and Alberta addressed this policy in several ways. As part of the deconstruction/demolition of the existing mall, Alberta has committed to dismantle the existing structures in manner that diverts at least 50% (by weight) of all materials from the landfill. Alberta Development has provided a memo which articulates how this will be accomplished, which is included as Attachment 3. It should be noted that demolition and construction waste material diversion is included as an agenda item during the May 3 charrette to identify ways to increase the diversion amount even more. The recycling plan during operations of the mall is also a key component of the overall waste diversion goals and several recommendations have been made to the Developer by the City’s Environmental Services that address this issue. These recommendations are included within the enhancements and additional measures provided to the Developer to improve the environmental sustainability of the project (Attachment 2). An overall waste management plan will be developed for the project and is included as part of the May 3 charrette. Blight Conditions A first step in any Urban Renewal Authority project is the determination of whether an area constitutes a blighted area under Colorado Urban Renewal Law. The principle purpose of determining blight and creating the related urban renewal plan and programs and/or projects of redevelopment is to eliminate blight or prevent the spread of blight and/or the further deterioration of blight areas (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-25-107(4.5). In 2007, the City of Fort Collins commissioned Terrance Ware & Associates to conduct an Existing Conditions Study to determine if the Foothills Mall area met the statutory requirements to be determined a “blighted area”. The 2007 study concluded the area was blighted based on six blight conditions. Furthermore, all of the blight conditions were found to still be in existence in April 2011 when the City conducted a second existing conditions study as part of the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey, which was third-party verified by MTA Planning & Architecture. In addition to deterioration of structures, obsolescence of building systems and poor or unsafe ingress and egress, there were three site conditions that contributed to the determination of blight. 57 May 7, 2013 These included: poor and hazardous pedestrian circulation; inadequate vehicular circulation; and, inadequate drainage facilities. The three site conditions were found to be present, independent of each other, in multiple locations; however, all three site conditions were found to exist on the southwestern portion of the site. The plan identified missing sidewalk connections along College Avenue, as well as a lack of pedestrian connections from College Avenue to the interior of the site; inadequate vehicular circulation within the interior of the site due to a lack of drive aisles and curb and gutter; as well as poor drainage as a result of the topography of the site. In particular, the site containing Sears is lower than the remaining mall site, and is immediately adjacent to a drainage ditch. The report states: “Drainage of the 72-acre parcel is highly inadequate. There are only six drains to facilitate drainage for the entire property. This causes significant back-ups often resulting in flooding during heavy rainstorms.” The site plan submitted to and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 7, 2013, reflects an effort to meet the goals of City Plan, the Land Use Code, and remediate the blight conditions identified in the 2007 Existing Conditions Study. In addition to the meeting the goals of City Plan and the Land Use Code, the current site plan remediates the three highlighted blight conditions in the following manner. In relation to vehicular circulation, the plan reconfigures the site to provide definite drive aisles with curb and gutter. The proposed drive aisles provide clear sight lines, and are clearly delineated with landscaped islands. Additionally, the proposed new building does not extend as far to the west as the existing building, and the existing drainage ditch is to be accommodated with an underground culvert. This eliminates the “bottleneck” issue and provides ample space for overall vehicular circulation. The existing lack of adequate pedestrian connections is alleviated by addressing both the vertical and horizontal constraints on the site. In order to achieve adequate pedestrian connections to the interior of the site, a significant amount of fill (roughly eight 8 feet in some locations) is proposed on the site. The fill would allow the pedestrian connections from College Avenue to the interior of the site to meet ADA requirements. Additionally, new sidewalks are proposed along College Avenue, as well as the main entrance into the mall from College Avenue. Finally, the inadequate drainage on the site is remedied by adding the fill, which allows for improved flow to the exterior of the site, as well as adding new drainage structures where appropriate. Eligible Costs Certain projects costs are eligible for public assistance per Colorado Revised Statutes relating to Urban Renewal and Special Districts (Title 32). The types of eligible costs for each (Urban Renewal and Metro District) are relatively broad and include such categories as: • Acquisition of a blighted area; • Demolition and removal of buildings and improvements; • Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other improvements necessary for carrying out the objectives of the urban renewal plan; • Carrying out plans for a program through voluntary action and the regulatory process for the repair, alteration, and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements in accordance with the urban renewal plan; 58 May 7, 2013 • Acquisition of any other property where necessary to eliminate unhealthful, unsanitary, or unsafe conditions, lessen density, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare, or otherwise remove or prevent the spread of blight or deterioration or to provide land for needed public facilities. It is important to note that the total amount of eligible costs per the Colorado Revised Statutes is significantly higher than the $53 million in public assistance being offered. However, the Developer and the City of Fort Collins established a process to identify project costs that are extraordinary costs associated with remediating blighted conditions on the property, or costs associated with public improvements or public infrastructure. These are costs in which there is direct public benefit. The process of identifying the eligible costs balanced the need to maximize the public benefit while ensuring the public assistance was the minimum amount necessary to make the project financially viable. The following provides a brief description of each of the eligible costs summarized in Table 1 below: • Land Acquisition: This amount represents the estimated value of the land underlying the portions of the project that include the public gathering spaces such as the east and west lawns, the Foothills Activity Center, and other green or public spaces on the site. • Parking Structure: This cost represents 75% of the parking structure. The structure allows for greater utilization of site including the public gathering spaces. • Demolition/Abatement: Demolition and deconstruction of the aging facility represents an extraordinary cost associated with remediating blight and mitigation the hazardous materials. • Fixture and Amenities: This represents urban design enhancements to the public gathering spaces (east and west lawns) to provide high quality of place. • Ditch Relocation: Relocating a segment of the Larimer No. 2 ditch to the west side of College Ave. represents an extraordinary cost associated with remediating blight. • Site Work: This cost is associated with earthwork (grade and fill), site walls to alleviate topographic constraints on the site, as well as asphalt paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks. • Utilities: This represents upgrades and improvements to sanitary sewer, storm water, water lines and fire water systems. • Soft Costs: Architectural and engineering costs associated with activity center, parking structure, as well as materials testing, and environmental/abatement management. • Foothills Activity Center: A publicly owned and operated activity center that includes gymnasium, public meeting rooms and after-school programs for youth. • Pedestrian Crossing/Underpass: A pedestrian connection linking MAX BRT and Foothills Mall utilizing Larimer No. 2 Ditch alignment under College Ave. 59 May 7, 2013 Table 1 Summary of Eligible Costs for Reimbursement ($ Millions) Public Benefit Fort Collins provides a high quality of place attributed to the lively historic downtown and the city’s impressive parks, trails and open space networks. These community assets make Fort Collins an attractive place for both a well-educated workforce and diverse industries. The redevelopment of Foothills represents an opportunity to strengthen the existing high quality of place. The Project meets numerous City Plan policy objectives and occurs in a Targeted Redevelopment Area (as defined by City Plan). Thus, the project represents an opportunity to achieve more than economic outcomes but an opportunity to strengthen the overall community. City Plan Objectives The Project as proposed meets a variety of City Plan objectives, including but not limited to: Economic Health • EH 1.4 – Target the Use of Incentives to Achieve Community Goals: The project will achieve broader community goals as described, including redevelopment within a Targeted Infill Area, infrastructure upgrades, and support of transit. • EH 4.1 – Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas: The Link-N-Greens site is within an identified targeted redevelopment area in City Plan. Community and Neighborhood Livability • LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill: The Foothills site is encompassed by the identified targeted redevelopment areas within City Plan. In addition, the Project meets the purpose of this principle because it: 60 May 7, 2013 N Promotes the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas; N Concentrates higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that will be served by high frequency transit in the future; N Promotes reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists; and N Increases economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and may provide the stimulus to redevelop. • LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine: Additionally, the project occurs in the identified “community spine,” which has been identified as the “highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixed-use activity centers”. • LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit: The project includes access to bus stops along College Avenue, Foothills Parkway and Stanford Road. In addition, the Project lies within a short walking distance of both the Horsetooth and Swallow MAX stops. Furthermore, the project will include the construction of a pedestrian underpass across College Avenue facilitating a safe link to MAX and Mason Corridor. Transportation • T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design: The proposed Project includes significant enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity around and thru the site. In addition, the underpass connection to MAX signifies a major opportunity to connect the Project to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system. Economic Health Strategic Plan In addition, the project as proposed addresses one of the four goals of the Economic Health Strategic Plan adopted by City Council in June 2012. This goal is supported by several strategies, which this project addresses specifically. Goal 4: Develop community assets and infrastructure necessary to support the region’s employers and talent. • Targeted Infill & Redevelopment: This project falls in a defined targeted and infill area and delivers a significant redevelopment project as a catalyst in the area. Midtown Urban Renewal Area The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, adopted in 2011 and ratified and confirmed in February 2013, is intended to stimulate private sector development in the Plan area using a combination of private and public investment and Urban Renewal Authority financing. Numerous objectives are identified to guide such investment, and the redevelopment of Foothills Mall accomplishes several, including: • Facilitate redevelopment by private enterprise through cooperation among developers and public agencies to plan, design, and build needed improvements. 61 May 7, 2013 • Address and remedy conditions in the area that impair or arrest the sound growth of the City. • Implement the Comprehensive Plan. • Redevelop and rehabilitate the area in a manner which is compatible with and complementary to unique circumstances in the area. • Improve pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit-related circulation and safety. • Contribute to increased revenues for all taxing entities. Financial Investment Overview On November 8, 2012, exclusive negotiations between the URA and Walton/Alberta were initiated under an Agreement to Negotiate. Negotiations with regard to the public financing package have been occurring since. The public financing package includes the dedication of four revenue sources in the following priority order: Sources • Foothills Metropolitan District Capital Mills – The Metro District will pledge 50 mills of ad valorem real property tax revenue to the bond. This mill levy expires when the bond is fully repaid or within 25 years, whichever comes first. • Property Tax Increment – The URA will pledge 100 percent of the annual ad valorem property tax increment revenue over a 25-year period, less an administrative fee up to a maximum of 1.5 percent of the gross property tax increment revenue received by the URA. • Public Improvement Fee – The Developer will impose a 1 percent Public Improvement Fee (PIF) on all taxable transactions within the Project and pledge these revenues to the bond. This revenue source sunsets after 30 years. • Sales Tax Increment – The URA will pledge 100 percent of the annual sales tax increment generated above a base by the Project related to the City’s 2.25 percent General Fund Sales Tax rate (the “Core Rate”). The above priority order works such that the first revenue source pledged to bond repayment is the last revenue source out. Therefore, the Sales Tax Increment Pledge, despite existing for all 25 years, will begin to release funds back the City as early as 2018. Project Cost Summary The total redevelopment project is estimated to cost $312 million. These costs are split between the commercial/retail at approximately $230 million or 74 percent and 446 anticipated residential units at a total cost of $82 million or 26 percent. The eligible costs described above total (See Table 1) approximately $53 million or 17 percent of the total cost and 23 percent of the commercial/retail costs. The eligible costs represents the target amount of bond proceeds to be generated by the pledged revenues. Assumptions The financial analysis resulting in the public finance investment contemplated in the proposed Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement relies on several key assumptions. Each of these assumptions is described briefly below: 62 May 7, 2013 • Project Timing – The financial analysis assumes a May 8 “go” date for commencement of construction activity. This result in a ground breaking in June/July 2013 and substantial completion of the project in November 2014. Demolition of the old Sears building, and construction of the new building in place of Sears, along with the residential is not likely to be complete until sometime in 2015. • Annual Sales Per Square Foot – The financial analysis assumes $350 per square foot in annual retail sales once the project stabilizes, assumed to occur in 2016. This assumption relies on several inputs, including the average annual sales per square foot figure for all Malls as provided by the International Council of Shopping Centers ($458 per square foot for 2012). In addition, Economic & Planning Systems provided a full analysis of retail transfer, inflow and growth, which was used to project the anticipated retail sales level at the redeveloped mall (See Attachment 4 for more details). • Occupancy – The financial analysis assumes, based on the construction schedule, that 80 percent of the gross leasable area will be occupied by retail tenants by December 31, 2015. This number will grow to 95 percent occupancy and remain at this level by December 31, 2016. • Retail Sales Growth – The financial analysis assumes that retail sales will grow by 2 percent annually. This pace of growth is consistent with historical growth rates in the City of Fort Collins of 5.4 percent annually since 1990. In addition, this rate falls short of the historic growth rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, 2.9 percent annually since 1982. • Property Value Growth – The financial analysis assumes that real property values will increase by 1 percent annually. This pace of growth is conservative compared to the historical growth rate in of real property in Larimer County. Public Finance Revenue Summary The Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement before the URA Board for consideration contemplates utilizing the pledged revenues, as described, to support the issuance of a bond by the Foothills Metro District. The proceeds from the bond issuance are intended to pay or reimburse the eligible costs and to pay cost of issuance. As described, the bond will be supported by four revenue sources. The primary revenues supporting the bond will come from the Metro District in the form of annual ad valorem taxes on real property and a PIF. These two revenue sources will generate $50.0 and $64.7 million respectively between 2015 and 2038, as shown in Table 2, over the 25 year anticipated life of the bond. In addition, the pledged URA property tax increment will generate approximately $55.2 million during the same period. By 2017, these three revenue sources will represent $6.4 million in revenue annually, the first full year of stabilized Metro District ad valorem tax, PIF and property tax increment. Based off the financial analysis, it is anticipated that these three revenue sources will be able to cover the full debt payment of the bond by the end of 2017. 63 May 7, 2013 Table 2 Summary of Public Finance Revenues Generated by the Project, 2015-2038 ($ Millions) In addition, sales tax increment has been pledged to support the issuance of a bond. There are three components to the sales tax generated by the Project, including: • Base – Existing sales tax revenue generated by retailers in the Mall and surrounding Project Area. • Transfer – Revenue from other areas of the city that shift to the Mall after redevelopment. • New – The net new revenue, or revenue in excess of base and transfer, associated with the redeveloped mall project. In addition, the sales tax revenue can be broken by the various pieces of the effective 3.85 percent rate. There are two main pieces, including: • Core City Sales Tax Rate – This corresponds to the long-standing 2.25 percent General Fund rate. • Dedicated City Sales Tax Rate – This corresponds to the sum total of four dedicated sales taxes including: Transportation (0.25 percent), Natural Areas (0.25 percent), Building on Basics (0.25 percent), and Keep Fort Collins Great (0.85 percent) dedicated sales tax rates for a total of 1.60 percent. The revenue generated by the constituent pieces of the Sales Tax rates is summarized in Table 3. The base, transfer, and new components of the Dedicated City Sales Tax Rate will generate approximately $104.6 million between 2015 and 2038. In addition, the Core Rate base Sale Tax Revenue will generate approximately $44.4 million during the same period. Therefore, the total revenue generated by the project that is not pledged to the bond is approximately $149.0 million. Table 3 Summary of Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2015-2038 ($Millions) 64 May 7, 2013 The Agreement only pledges the transfer and new sales tax revenue related to the Core Rate. Based on the financial analysis, these sales tax revenues represent approximately $102.7 million or the anticipated pledge sales tax revenue. However, the Agreement distinguishes between sales tax pledge and remittance/share. Each item is described below: • Sales Tax Pledge – The Agreement pledges only tax revenues generated by the Core Rate, only the tax revenue in excess of the base and defines the base as the 12 months prior to the modification of the Plan to authorize tax increment. • Sales Tax Share/Remittance – The Agreement recognizes that the sales tax pledge is only the extent necessary to support debt service and reserve contributions after all other revenue sources contribute completely to support the bond. Public Finance Package Structure To better understand the structure of the public finance package, Table 4 summarizes the anticipated sales tax revenue split between the two rates (Core and Dedicated) by the three components (Base, Transfer, and New). In 2016, the total pledged sales tax revenue to the project (identified by the yellow) totals $3.1 million of the approximately $4.9 million generated by the Core Rate (2.25 percent). The City retains the remaining $5.3 million generated by the unpledged Dedicated Rate (1.60 percent) and Core Rate base. These numbers increase to $3.3 million in pledged revenue and $5.5 million in retained revenue by 2018. Table 4 Annual Summary of Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2016 & 2018 As stated, the pledged sales tax revenue serves as the last revenue source to support the issuance of the bond. Therefore, as the remaining three pledge revenues grow over time the need for pledged sales tax revenue to support the bonds diminishes to zero. The financial analysis demonstrates this in the estimated cash flow presented in Table 5. The bond will likely be issued in 2013 with three years of capitalized interest. Based on forecasts, revenue will first be available to fund the debt service of the bond in 2015. In 2015, the pledged revenue sources, excluding the sales tax revenue, will generate approximately $2.1 million towards bond repayment and reserve contributions. The pledged sales tax revenue will generate an additional $2.5 million. These two revenue sources combined will generate sufficient revenue (along with capitalized interest) to cover the debt payment and reserve contributions required by the bond. The pledged revenue sources, excluding the sales tax revenue, will grow to $6.5 million in 2017 65 May 7, 2013 largely due to the delay in property tax valuation and collection. The pledged sales tax revenue is anticipated to grow to $3.2 million. Together, these revenues will cover the debt payment and the last sizable portion of the supplemental reserve fund contribution. Starting in 2018, the pledged revenue sources, excluding sales tax revenue, are anticipated to cover the debt payment thru the rest of the bond term, which is anticipated to terminate in 2038. As a result, starting in 2018 the pledged sales tax revenue will not be required to meet debt payments or reserve contributions. These revenues will, according to the terms of the Agreement, be released back to the City. At that point, the total sales tax revenue retained by the City will rise to $8.8 million and continue at this rate with 2 percent growth per year. This constitutes a $4.0 million increase in net new revenues compared to the existing $3.2 million base (both Core and Dedicate Rates) and estimated $1.6 million in transfer. As a result approximately $8.8 million of the pledge sales tax is used between 2013 and 2017 to support the debt payment and reserve contributions. Table 5 Anticipated Public Finance Cash Flow, 2015-2019 ($ Millions) FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Financial Impact to the City Net Revenue to the City The financial analysis evaluated the impact of the sales tax pledge over the full 25 years of the bond term. This provides a fuller understanding of the impact to the City of the sales tax pledge. The total anticipated sales tax revenue generated by the Core Rate between 2015 and 2038 is approximately $147 million with $103 million pledged toward the bond issuance (Transfer and New; shown in yellow), as shown in Table 6. The Dedicated Rate generates approximately $105 million between 2015 and 2038. The grand total of anticipated sales tax is approximately $252 million. The estimated new revenue between 2015 and 2038 is approximately $117 million. Subtracting the estimated $8.8 million in tax used to make debt payments and reserve contributions between 2013 and 2017 leaves approximately $108 million in net new to the City or approximately $4.3 million annually on average. 66 May 7, 2013 Table 6 Summary of Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2015-2038 ($ Millions) Sensitivity/Risk Analysis Staff has evaluated 3 risk scenarios that are summarized in Table 7. Scenario I – current assumptions on the District bond assume a non-rated issue with a term of 25 years at a 7% interest rate supported by the four pledged revenues as previously discussed. If the interest rate were to increase to 8%, debt service would increase by $17M and cause an $11M reduction in the Net New City Revenue. Scenario II – assumes a 10% reduction in sales per square foot (a reduction from the current assumption of $350 sq. ft. to $315 sq. ft.) and a reduction in assessed property values of 10%. Metro District revenues would decline by $20M, Remitted Sales Tax Revenue would increase by $6M, and Net New City Revenue would decline by $23M, largely driven by the reduction in sales tax receipts. Scenario III – assume a 20% reduction in sales per square foot (a reduction from the current assumption of $350 sq. ft. to $280 sq. ft.) and no change to assumed property valuations. Metro District revenue would decline by $13M, Remitted Sales Tax Revenue would increase by $2M, and Net New City Revenue would decline by $35M. In summary, the most significant risk to the City occurs with from a shortfall in sales per square foot. As previously stated, staff believe the sales per square foot assumption of $350 is conservative compared with other retail activity benchmark data. Table 7 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis ($ Millions) 67 May 7, 2013 Economic Impact Analysis Overview The Project will generate economic impacts during construction and operations. The construction activities, occurring while the Developer builds and renovates Foothills, will generate one-time impact for construction workers and businesses in the area. The on-going operations of the redeveloped mall and the occupying tenants will create annual economic impacts, employing workers in the community and supporting additional economic activity throughout the region. An economic impact analysis prepared by TIP Strategies and ImpactDataSource evaluates the plan to redevelop the Foothills Mall (Attachment 5). The analysis uses the Project Development Plan as approved by the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board, on February 7, 2013, as the input, assuming a $312 million project investment and 446 multi-family residential units. The one-time construction activity will support 2,905 workers in the area and support $160.1 million in new earnings for these works, as shown in Table 8. The redeveloped mall operations represent the restaurant and retail employment and earnings supported by tenants at the mall. Currently, mall tenants employ 200-300 workers but employment is trending lower. It is projected that tenants leasing space in the redeveloped mall will employ a total of 1,200 workers when fully leased. In total, the mall’s operations will support 1,434 total workers and $28.4 million in workers’ earnings annually. Table 8 Summary of One-Time and Annual Economic Impacts Construction (One-Time) One-Time Jobs 2,905 Earnings $160,096,05 7 Average Earnings per Job $55,111 Operations (On-going)** Annual Jobs 1,434 Earnings $28,375,412 Average Earnings per Job $19,785 In addition to economic impacts, the redevelopment of the mall will generate one-time revenues collected by the City of Fort Collins. These revenues will be generated by the construction and renovation investment. Specifically, the redevelopment and construction project will result in sales and use tax collections, capital expansion fees, building permits and plan check fees. The one-time revenue from Sales and Use Taxes will total approximately $5.1 million with approximately $4.8 million in construction materials sales and use tax revenue and $197,000 in sales and use tax from construction worker spending, as shown in Table 9. The total building permit and plan check fees, capital expansion fees, utility fees, and street oversizing fees will total approximately $12.4 million. 68 May 7, 2013 Table 9 Summary of One-Time Fiscal Impacts Sales and Use Taxes – Construction Materials $4,870,250 Sales and Use Taxes – Construction Worker Spending $197,245 Total Sales & Use Taxes $5,067,495 Building Permit & Plan Check Fees $848,414 Capital Expansion Fees (Less Credits) $3,441,306 Stormwater, Water & Wastewater Fees (Less Credits) $6,332,604 Street Oversizing Fees $1,729,600 Total Permit, Plan Check, and Fees $12,351,924 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Triple Bottom Line Analysis City staff prepared a Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM) for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project. The purpose of looking at major projects through a triple bottom line lens is to identify opportunities and issues in an unbiased and broad way. The TBLAM is not used to make decisions but rather to identify and work to mitigate issues, to optimize solutions whenever possible, and to inform decisions. The Mall TBLAM is presented in Attachment 6. The City of Fort Collins is committed to analyzing major projects using a triple bottom line approach. Over the next several months, the Sustainability Services Area will be working to identify and optimize the set of tools and approaches to conduct these analyses in conjunction with the development of the community sustainability plan. Carbon Footprint A carbon footprint analysis is being completed for the Mall Redevelopment Project at City Council’s request. The analysis will evaluate the footprint of the proposed redeveloped mall and compare that to the footprint of the existing mall and to the existing mall if it were operating under thriving conditions. A local sustainability engineering consulting firm, The Brendle Group, has been retained to prepare the analysis in conjunction with City staff. The footprint analysis will be reviewed and refined at the May 3, 2013 mall charrette and will be provided to City Council by close of business on May 3rd under separate cover. Storm Water Quality The Foothills Redevelopment is required to meet current storm water standards, which will result in significant upgrades to the site. Runoff will be captured and treated to remove pollutants and discharged off site at a much slower rate than the existing condition. The storm water management and treatment facilities will provide significant reductions in peak rates of runoff from the site seen during all storm events. The reductions will create improvements in the environment downstream of the site such as reductions in the erosion of channels and improved water quality in rivers and streams that receive the runoff from the site. 69 May 7, 2013 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Economic Advisory Commission met April 24 and May 1, 2013 and voted 6-1 to recommend the following: “The Economic Advisory Commission believes that the Foothills Mal redevelopment is an important part of the Fort Collins City Plan and economic vision. As such, the EAC supports the public finance assistance package for the Foothills Redevelopment Project as described by City staff. As part iof this recommendation ,the EAC highly recommends good faith efforts by the City in order to understand the full revenue and cost implications for, and to collaborate with other taxing entities based on forthcoming rigorous analysis of the forecasted and eventually actual impacts of redevelopment.” PUBLIC OUTREACH The following lists outreach associated with all URA actions related to Foothills Mall. Outreach between 2007-2008 • April 4, 2007 written notification to property owners and business interests • April 6, 2007 published notification in the Coloradoan • April 11, 2007 public open house • April 17, 2007 City Council meeting, submitting the Existing Conditions Survey to the Planning and Zoning Board, Poudre School District, and Larimer County • April 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting • Written notification to taxing entities • May 15, 2007 City Council meeting, adopting the Foothills Urban Renewal Plan • November 18, 2008 City Council meeting, dissolving the Foothills Urban Renewal Plan Outreach between 2011-2013 • January 21, 2011 written notification to property owners and business interests • February 1, 2011 City Council meeting, authorizing staff to prepare an Existing Conditions Survey • April 20, 2011 public open house • May 17, 2011 City Council meeting, submitting Existing Conditions Survey to the Planning and Zoning Board, Poudre School District, and Larimer County • May 19, 2011 written notifications to taxing entities • July 12, 2011 written notification to property owners and business interests • 2011, general outreach was also provided throughout the year to community organizations, such as the South Fort Collins Business Association and Chamber of Commerce • September 6, 2011 City Council meeting adopting the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan • July 18, 2012 written notification to property owners and business interests (Mall area only) 70 May 7, 2013 • November 8, 2012 URA Board meeting, adopting an Agreement to Negotiate with mall Owner • December 12, 2012 written notice to property owners and business interests • December 12, 2012 published notification in the Coloradoan • February 28, 2013 City Council meeting, reaffirming the Midtown Existing Conditions Survey and Urban Renewal Plan • March 28, 2013 written notice to property owners and business interests regarding the plan amendment • March 28, 2013 published notification in the Coloradoan regarding the plan amendment General Outreach on the Financial Investment Package: • Economic Advisory Meeting, Special Session, April 24, 2013 and May 1, 2013 (See Attachment 8) • Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Local Legislative Affairs Committee, April 26, 2013 • Open House for Board and Commission Chairs, April 30, 2013” Mayor Weitkunat withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest. City Manager Atteberry reviewed the objectives of the project: to realize a community vision and expectations for the site, to launch a catalytic opportunity in the Midtown area, to enhance the revenue flow for the City of Fort Collins, and to not put the City’s balance sheet or credit rating at risk. City Manager Atteberry discussed the tenant issues that needed to be resolved. He stated the Sears eminent domain issue has been resolved and other issues are also close to resolution. He discussed the tunnel which will be constructed to connect the Mason Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit to this site and stated the project will include the Foothills Activity Center, though the location has not specifically been identified. Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, discussed the blight study and subsequent Urban Renewal Authority for the Midtown area. He discussed the City’s recommendations for a more environmentally-conscious plan and identified the results of work in this area, including stormwater treatment, harvesting and recycling of 100% of the site’s asphalt and concrete, a minimum of 50% deconstruction/construction waste diversion, with a goal of 70%, providing electric vehicle charging stations, certifying the Foothills Activity Center at a LEED gold standard, certifying the parking structure as LEED silver, and redeveloping an existing asset. Hendee detailed additional environmental considerations of the project and discussed its carbon footprint. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the details of the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement and projected sales tax revenue. He stated staff believes this is a community-critical project and is a catalytic project for the Midtown area and noted the package is financed from revenues off the project and not from other revenue streams. Lloyd Lewis, ARC Thrift Stores CEO, stated ARC has signed an agreement with the Foothills Mall developer to relocate. The agreement required the developer to provide the consent of the current landlord to end the current lease. At this point, the developer has not had further contact with the 71 May 7, 2013 landlord and ARC either needs the required consent or a letter of credit in the amount of the remaining lease payments to secure its ability to sign a new lease. Mr. Lewis requested that this be a stipulation of approval. Edie Shur, ARC Leasing Representative, stated an indemnity from the developer needs to be coupled with ARC’s current landlord’s consent. Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, supported the business assistance agreement. Ty Muirhead, 1631 Maplewood Drive, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Don Provost, Alberta Development Partners, requested Council support for the business assistance package. Judy Greene, 4500 South Stover, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Carrie Gillis, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Barry Hinkley, ARC Thrift Store District Manager, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Donna Clark, Fort Collins Marriott Director of Sales and Marketing, supported the business assistance package. Cheryl Littlefield, ARC Thrift Store employee, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Erick Martinez, ARC Thrift Store Vice-President for Retail Operations, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Altara Higinbotham, 2627 Arancia Drive, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Jim Palmer, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Steve Johnson, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, opposed the business assistance package due to the County aspects. Tom Balcheck, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package with the caveat that the needs of ARC be addressed. Lew Gaiter, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, did not support the business assistance package nor the use of tax increment financing. Jim Clark, Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau, supported the business assistance package. Tom Donnelly, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, requested the item be tabled to allow further negotiations with the County. 72 May 7, 2013 Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the business assistance package as being a violation of the City Charter. Ashley Stiles, Local Legislative Affairs Committee, supported the business assistance package. Chris Marshall, 926 West Mountain, expressed concern about the potential use of eminent domain and questioned the ARC Thrift Store dealings. Frances Owens, ARC Thrift Store Community Relations Director, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Patrick Edwards, Fort Collins resident, opposed the business assistance package. Luke McFetridge, South Fort Collins Business Association President, supported the business assistance package. Wendie Robinson, ARC of Larimer County Executive Director, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Cindy Eichler, Foothills Mall General Manager, supported the business assistance package. Julian Wang, ARC Thrift Store Employee, supported the ARC Thrift Store. Andy Smith, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Ron Lautzenheiser, North and South Fort Collins Business Associations, supported the business assistance package. Steve Lucas, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, supported the business assistance package. Eric Lee, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Spiro Palmer, 7400 Streamside, supported the business assistance package. Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, opposed the business assistance package. Rob Kauffman, Foothills Mall Counsel, stated the agreement already provides for the concerns of the ARC Thrift Store. Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Don Butler, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. Lucia Liley, ARC Counsel, stated ARC is willing to relocate upon receiving consent from its current landlord. She also stated ARC is willing to fund the letter of credit if necessary. Debbie Tamlin, Fort Collins resident, supported the business assistance package. 73 May 7, 2013 Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, opposed the business assistance package. Carolyn White, Counsel for the developer and applicant, requested support for the business assistance package. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Councilmember Overbeck requested information regarding the City Charter. City Attorney Roy replied Mr. Sutherland has raised issues regarding several provisions of the City Charter. Upon staff’s examination of these provisions, it is the opinion of the legal team that the transaction being offered to Council does not violate the Charter. Dee Wisor, Bond Counsel for the City of Fort Collins, replied this transaction is compliant with the City Charter and the Colorado Constitution. He cited a Colorado Supreme Court case regarding the use of tax increment financing by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority in which the Court found the use of tax increment financing to be valid in Colorado and its use does not create a general obligation debt of the City. He stated the actions before Council in this item do not involve a City debt, do not involve a guarantee by the City, and do not involve an appropriation. Councilmember Poppaw asked if there is a time period requirement for the construction of the residential component. Beckstead replied there is a requirement that 200 of the units be started by 2014 and completed by 2015; the remaining 246 units are to be completed by 2017. Councilmember Poppaw asked about the impact of another regional mall being built in the area. Beckstead replied that is a difficult theoretical question to answer due to several variables. He noted the tenant mix expected for the Foothills Mall is planned to differ from that of Centerra. Councilmember Poppaw asked what percentage of the sales tax is returned to the City should the mall fail to be successful. Beckstead replied the agreement is structured such that the base bucket gets filled up first; the City of Fort Collins stays whole relative to its current sales tax projections. Councilmember Poppaw stated she supports the redevelopment of the mall, but also wants to see the best possible business assistance package for the citizens. She asked about the City standards for waste diversion in deconstruction. Hendee replied the City’s standards are to recycle 100% of concrete, asphalt, dirt, bricks and metals and achieve a 70% diversion by weight or volume of all other materials. He stated the developer has now committed to a 100% recycling of asphalt and concrete, which takes up a majority of the volume of recycling that would happen on the project. The developer has also agreed to a goal of 70% diversion for all other materials. Councilmember Poppaw requested that the developer be required to participate at the level required by the City. Hendee replied the developer has committed to the 70% diversion of other materials. Councilmember Poppaw asked why the green energy program purchases are voluntary. Hendee replied there are opportunities to evaluate additional components and negotiate with the developer. Councilmember Poppaw requested information regarding the status of the ARC Thrift Store. City Manager Atteberry suggested the attorneys for both sides respond. 74 May 7, 2013 Councilmember Campana stated there is already an agreement in place in which Alberta would execute an assignment of the lease. He asked why a letter of credit is coming into play. Ms. Liley replied the agreement ARC entered into with Walton had a provision that required the developer to obtain the consent of ARC’s current landlord by February 6th. ARC was able to find a new location on February 21st; however, the consent of the landlord was never received by the developer and therefore ARC cannot move forward on the new location. She stated ARC simply needs that consent from the existing landlord. The letter of credit would ensure ARC has a source of income to pay should issues arise. Ms. Liley stated ARC needs the consent no later than May 31st when the lease option expires, and if that is not received, it needs a letter of credit to ensure it is not put at risk. Mr. Kauffman stated it is disingenuous to suggest that the parties expected a consent on February 6th. He stated the developer has pursued and has engaged in negotiations with Larimer, ARC’s current landlord. He stated there was never a goal to put ARC at risk and they were never expected to relocate until the consent was received. Mr. Kauffman stated the developer needs to know what type of business assistance package it will receive prior to making a deal with Larimer. He stated a letter of credit for ARC may necessitate the same requirement for other tenants and would interfere with development of the mall. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the developer will need to comply with the 2012 Building Code, given it has yet to be adopted by Council. Hendee replied in the negative but noted the developer is exceeding the Code for roof insulation, interior lighting, the use of LED light control switches, and other items. Councilmember Poppaw asked in what areas the developer is not exceeding the Code requirements. Hendee replied more work needs to be done on the design before those questions can be answered. Councilmember Poppaw requested the requirement for Code compliance. Councilmember Poppaw noted there is no plan for any affordable housing units, but asked about the possibility of a fee in lieu of that requirement. City Manager Atteberry replied he had proposed a 5% dedication of the units to affordable housing, which was not accepted by the developer; however, Mr. Provost has agreed to pay an affordable housing impact fee should Council consider and pass such a fee in the next six months. Councilmember Cunniff stated he too supports the mall redevelopment and commended staff and Mr. Provost on work on the business assistance package. He asked if sales tax kicks in again should the property TIF decline to the point where it cannot fully do debt service. Beckstead replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Cunniff asked why the PIF is structured in a 30 year timeframe rather than 25 years. Beckstead replied the developer had requested an indefinite PIF. It was left at 30-year to be consistent with the Front Range Village PIF. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the business assistance size and complexity is somewhat related to the size of the public improvements necessary for the project. Beckstead replied in the affirmative and added the complexity is also a function of the way the deal has been structured to minimize the risk to the City. 75 May 7, 2013 Councilmember Cunniff asked if partial self-financing of the parking garage was ever discussed. Beckstead replied the intent was to have the garage be publically accessible without a fee. Councilmember Cunniff noted there are no other free parking structures in the city and expressed concern allowing free parking goes contrary to the goal of reduced car miles traveled. Councilmember Campana noted the fees charged at other city parking structures go toward operations costs rather than capital costs. Councilmember Cunniff asked if upside participation had been considered. Beckstead replied he is unclear as to what exactly Mr. Sutherland was referencing with regard to upside participation; however, it happens naturally as a result of the net taxable sales at the Mall. City Manager Atteberry stated the Resolution coming before Council later in the agenda discussing the revenue sharing process will help address the issue. Councilmember Cunniff asked if there is an estimate of the square footage to be vacated as a result of Midtown transfers. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, replied that has not been calculated exactly; however, the City is committed to ensuring vacancies last as little time as possible. Councilmember Poppaw stated the package may be better without the Foothills Activity Center or pedestrian underpass included. City Manager Atteberry replied it is minus $8 million if the Mason Corridor underpass is removed, and minus $4.8 million for the Foothills Activity Center. He stated there may be the possibility of relocating the Activity Center to another area within the District. Councilmember Poppaw suggested a possible alternative to funding the parking structure. City Manager Atteberry replied staff has little experience with fee parking in such structures. Councilmember Campana asked about the applicant’s obligation should the Foothills Activity Center be removed from the project. Birks replied the obligation, of approximately $620,000, kicks in if there is no longer a facility that meets the need as described. Councilmember Poppaw clarified her previous suggestion that the Foothills Activity Center not be included in this package. She suggested relocating the Center to an alternative site. City Manager Atteberry replied the City will need to find a funding source of $4.8 million, plus the cost of property, should Council opt to not place the Center in the District. Councilmember Overbeck asked about the size, scale and significance of the solar aspect of the project. Hendee replied there is an opportunity for a solar component to be incentivized through the City’s solar program and is currently designed to deliver up to a megawatt per year. He added the Activity Center could also include photovoltaic options. Councilmember Overbeck asked about the average occupancy rates of other such malls around the area. Birks replied staff does not currently have that data, but stated 5% vacancy is a standard assumption. Councilmember Troxell stated the co-location of the Foothills Activity Center and the tunnel access to the Mason Corridor are important aspects of the project. 76 May 7, 2013 Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Resolution 2013-042. Councilmember Cunniff thanked the staff at Alberta and City staff and stated the mall redevelopment is a critical project; however, he stated the business assistance package does not meet the standards he expects. Councilmember Campana disagreed with Councilmember Cunniff and the two had a discussion regarding whether or not a financial net zero gain would occur and Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like to see a smaller assistance package. Councilmember Campana stated he would accept a deal in which the package is reduced by $8 million and the Activity Center and underpass are removed from the financing package, with the agreement that an Activity Center will be built elsewhere and there will be a safe connection to the mall property from the Mason Corridor. Councilmember Cunniff replied he may be able to support that but would not want to vote on that this evening. Councilmember Troxell stated the package is workable and one or two items that may need adjusting could be worked on this evening. Councilmember Poppaw stated she is prepared to vote against the package unless all of the changes are written down and voted upon. City Manager Atteberry suggested that occur with the issues of the Activity Center, affordable housing, and other issues. Councilmember Campana discussed the changes needed from his perspective: recycling of 100% of concrete as well as asphalt, meeting or exceeding of the City’s goals for deconstruction / construction waste diversion, potentially requiring green energy purchases, meeting the upcoming City goal regarding affordable housing, granting the flexibility to relocated the Activity Center off- site but within the URA, requiring the assignment be in place for ARC by May 31 or a letter of credit will be posted, and requiring further discussions regarding the sharebacks with the County and other taxing entities. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Deputy City Attorney Daggett described her suggested amendments to the Resolution language. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt the suggested language related to an affordable housing component or payment in lieu of that component, according to the affordable housing policy that will be put in place citywide. Ms. White stated the developer is prepared to agree generally to the concept that is being proposed regarding the affordable housing policy. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Cunniff and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 77 May 7, 2013 City Manager Atteberry stated the applicant has agreed to voluntarily apply the 2012 Building Code as long as there are no local amendments to that Code. Councilmember Poppaw clarified there may be local amendments made; however, the developer will not be required to comply with those. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt the suggested language regarding compliance with the 2012 International Building Code. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw and Campana. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry suggested discussing amending the public improvement fee duration from thirty years down to twenty-five years. Ms. White stated the developer would agree, so long as the district bonds are outstanding. Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt the suggested language regarding amending the public improvement fee duration. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana and Overbeck. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hendee suggested language relating to the standards used by the City of Fort Collins Operation Services Department for waste diversion requirements for deconstruction and construction. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt the suggested language related to waste diversion. Ms. White stated the developer is willing to agree to that amendment. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hendee read the other environmental conditions to which the developer has agreed: dust control, construction equipment emissions control, waste diversion during construction, consideration of on- site renewables, consideration of sustainable and local building materials, incorporation of low- energy use lighting wherever possible, ensure low or no VOC-emissions products are used, encourage installation of plug-in electric vehicle charging stations, minimize the use of asbestos containing materials, water conservation, minimize of prohibit vehicle idling on the mall site, master plan for waste diversion from mall operations and public use, multi-family recycling, recycling depots, public recycling containers, food scraps, use compostable materials at the food court, use of recycled materials, build-in ease of future deconstruction, soil amendments, use of native plants, 78 May 7, 2013 increased transplanting of trees, creation of an underpass from the mall site to MAX BRT, locate additional bike racks and lockers at the mall and near bus stops, and citizen and visitor education. Councilmember Poppaw noted the developer has already agreed to the installation of two electric vehicle charging stations and additional conduit. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt the inclusion of the language as outlined by Hendee. Ms. White stated the developer agrees to all the items. Yeas: Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hendee suggested discussing the green power purchase program. He stated a commitment by the developer of one percent per year would equate to about a $300,000 additional cost per year. Councilmember Troxell stated he would rather see an investment in the infrastructure as opposed to an ongoing operational expense of the green power. Councilmember Cunniff stated he is hesitant to require specific green energy program purchases as technology and the City’s program are evolving rapidly. Hendee stated his last item is consolidation of recycling and trash services to one company. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would prefer that a single provider be used for construction and operation. Hendee replied that may be difficult given the types of items which will be hauled away for recycling during construction. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would accept the original suggestion relating to operations. Ms. White stated the developer is willing to agree to that amendment for the portions of the property for which he is in charge of operations; however, there will be two large retailers on site which will have control over their own trash operations. Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt the suggested language relating to a single trash and recycling provider for the portions of the project over which the developer has control. Yeas: Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry stated staff is of the opinion that the conversation relating to sharebacks should be based on data and should be expanded to future annexations. He noted Item No. 31 is a Resolution related to this issue and will create the dialogue with the County with a time constraint of the end of the year. 79 May 7, 2013 City Manager Atteberry outlined the other taxing entities: the Library District, the Health District, the Water Conservation District, pest control, and Foothills Gateway. Birks noted the Foothills Gateway mill dedication is actually a subset of the County’s mills. County Commissioner Gaiter stated the Board of County Commissioners is willing to trust Council, but is very cautious. Councilmember Cunniff noted the stated intent in the Resolution is to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. County Commissioner Gaiter expressed concern regarding the inclusion of future annexations in this deal. Deputy City Attorney Daggett discussed her proposed language for an amendment regarding the Foothills Activity Center. She stated the language requires that the Activity Center not be located on the mall property but elsewhere on a property to be identified within the Urban Renewal Area. City Manager Atteberry noted the use of reserves or General Fund would be required for a property purchase. The metro district’s $4.8 million would then be used to build the facility. Councilmember Campana suggested language which would allow the flexibility for the Activity Center to be on or off the mall property. Councilmember Cunniff agreed and noted there may be another location on the site that would not attach the Activity Center to the mall itself. Ms. White noted the four revenue streams available to pay for the Activity Center each carry with them their own legal constraints on how they can be spent. Should a location be selected that is not compatible with any of those revenue streams, either the financing has to be completely separated or the revenue streams cannot be used. She stated the developer is willing to engage with the City in an examination of potential alternative locations. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked about the aspect of potentially leaving the Activity Center on the property but not attached directly to the mall. Ms. White replied the design was intentionally developed to allow connectivity between the mall and the Activity Center, per the request of the City. Councilmember Troxell stated the Activity Center is important to the project and the developer should have the opportunity to integrate it into the project per the City’s requirements. City Manager Atteberry stated other Councilmembers have expressed concern regarding the co- location with the mall, as the facility is one that will ultimately be operated by the City. He committed to Council that he will consult with them regarding potential options. Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested modifying the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement to allow for the evaluation of other possible locations for the Foothills Activity Center, both on the mall property and in other locations in the Midtown Urban Renewal Area, and to provide for modification to the amount of the District bonds and the list of eligible improvements based on the final outcome of that investigation and planning process. 80 May 7, 2013 Ms. White stated the developer can accept that wording but would like to add a stipulation that this will not add additional delay to the project. Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt the suggested language relating to the Foothills Activity Center. Yeas: Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Horak and Cunniff. Nays: Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Cunniff stated he would ultimately like to discuss the 100% TIF situation relating to the Urban Renewal Authority. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Kauffman stated ARC has the current option to lease the new space through the end of May. The consent of the new landlord will be obtained to extend that option on a monthly basis. The cost of extending that option through September will be split; and if the extension or consent are unable to be obtained, the developer is agreeing to put up the letter of credit at that time. Ms. Liley stated ARC would like to ensure this is a condition of the City’s redevelopment agreement with the developer so it will be tied to the City’s commitments under that agreement. Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested requiring that the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement be revised to require that, in order for the developer to not be in default and for all requirements and commitments to continue under the agreement, the developer shall follow through with the commitments as described at this meeting. Additionally, the Resolution could direct that staff describe those details in the redevelopment agreement, but not necessarily in this motion. She suggested the motion to amend include the following wording: the agreement shall be revised in order to provide that the developer is obligated to carry out the terms of the agreement with ARC Thrift Stores to be described in detail consistent with the manner in which that arrangement was described in the record of tonight’s meeting. Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt the suggested language relating to the ARC Thrift Store. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted both Mr. Kauffman and Ms. Liley agreed to such wording. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Cunniff and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hendee stated an agreement regarding a tenant criteria manual has not yet been discussed. He stated that manual would detail specific existing City Code requirements that may apply to tenant finish projects and highlight goals and objectives for tenant opportunities for sustainable projects. 81 May 7, 2013 Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt the suggested language relating to a tenant criteria manual. Yeas: Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw and Campana. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Cunniff stated he is still somewhat uncomfortable with the assistance package; however, he expressed appreciation for the negotiations that have occurred and stated there may not be a better deal forthcoming. Councilmember Poppaw expressed appreciation for staff work and the agreements made with Alberta. Councilmember Campana expressed appreciation for work on the item. Councilmember Troxell expressed appreciation for Alberta and their willingness to make this a great project for Fort Collins. He thanked City Manager Atteberry and staff for work on the item. Councilmember Overbeck expressed appreciation for work on the item. The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 2013-042, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana and Overbeck. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Suspension of the Rules Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to suspend the rules and extend the meeting past 12:00 a.m. in order to consider the remaining three items on the agenda. Yeas: Horak, Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing and Resolution 2013-043 Making Legislative Findings and Approving Amendments to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to Establish the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District, Adopted The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council adopted the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) in September 2011 and later reaffirmed and ratified the Plan in February 2013. With the sale of Foothills Mall to Walton Foothills Holdings, IV LLC (Owner) in July 2012, and subsequent Agreement to Negotiate between the Owner and the City, City Council will be considering a public financing package to assist with the substantial redevelopment of the mall. Tax increment financing (TIF) is one component of that financing package; however, in order to utilize TIF, City Council must first amend the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan and create a new Foothills Mall TIF District. 82 May 7, 2013 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) was created by City Council in 1982 to prevent and eliminate conditions in the community related to certain “blight factors”, as defined in Sections 31-25-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes (the Urban Renewal Law). Using tax increment financing (TIF), the URA is able to leverage public and private investment to remediate blight, which is complimentary to the City’s broader goal of promoting redevelopment and infill in targeted areas. Midtown Fort Collins has been identified as one of these targeted areas for infill and redevelopment, primarily because it includes a significant portion of the College Avenue commercial corridor and the Mason Corridor, collectively referred to as the “community spine” in City Plan. In 2011, the URA conducted an Existing Conditions Survey (Survey) for Midtown and found seven of the eleven statutory blight factors present in the area. In September of that year, City Council accepted the Survey and adopted the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. The strategy for the use of TIF in Midtown is different than the North College Urban Renewal Plan area; rather than collecting TIF throughout the entire area at once, Midtown will have separate TIF Districts that will be created as significant projects redevelop. Prospect South is the first TIF District that was created for Midtown, and was done so at the same time the Plan was adopted in September 2011. In July 2012, Foothills Mall and adjacent property was purchased by Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC (Owner) with the intent to complete a significant redevelopment. An Agreement to Negotiate was executed between the Owner and the City in November 2012, and discussions with regard to a public financing package have been occurring since. One component of the package is TIF via the URA. In order to utilize TIF for this project, City Council must first amend the existing Plan and create a new TIF District. A copy of the existing Plan (adopted in September 2011, reaffirmed and ratified in February 2013) is provided as Attachments 1. The amended Plan is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Resolution. The amended Plan includes the boundary for the proposed Foothills Mall TIF District, and several minor text edits/additions for clarification purposes. If the amended Plan is adopted, the 25-year TIF clock for the District would begin immediately, meaning the URA would collect incremental tax revenue until 2038. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Adopting the Resolution enables the URA to pledge sales and property tax increment towards the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. This project is estimated to generate approximately $117 million in new revenue between 2015 and 2038. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Resolution has no direct environmental impacts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. 83 May 7, 2013 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on May 6, 2013 and determined that the amended Plan conforms to the principles and policies identified and City Plan. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notice was provided in accordance with Urban Renewal Law to all property owners, residents, and business interests within the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area and Larimer County, as well as published, more than 30 days prior to this meeting date. The URA also provided an Impact Report to Larimer County in accordance with Urban Renewal Law in January 2013. See Attachment 2 for the complete Impact Report.” Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, argued the City of Fort Collins should have no say as to how tax increment is collected. Jim Palmer, South Fort Collins Business Association, supported the Resolution. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution 2013-043, including the amended agreement in Exhibit A. Yeas: Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Public Hearing and Resolution 2013-044 Approving an Amended Service Plan for the Foothills Metropolitan District, Adopted The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The new owner of Foothills Mall Alberta Development, in partnership with Walton Street Capital, requested the formation of a Metropolitan District as allowed by Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes in August 2012. On September 4, 2012, Council approved, by Resolution 2012-084, a Service Plan for Foothills Metropolitan District (the “District”), providing a preliminary framework for operations of the District. The approval included the requirement to amend the District service plan prior to constructing improvements, establishing mill levies, or issuing debt by the District. The Resolution before City Council amends the District Service Plan (the “Amended Service Plan”) to operationalize significant components of the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the City, Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. and the Foothills Metropolitan District considered by Resolution 2013-044. 84 May 7, 2013 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION “BOTTOM LINE” The action contemplated by the City Council on May 7 approves an amendment to the existing Service Plan for the District. The Amended Service Plan authorizes the maximum amount of debt allowed, the mill levy maximums, and other aspects of the operations of the District. The Amended Service Plan is consistent with the terms of the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (the “Agreement”) considered for approval by City Council by Resolution 2013-044 on May 7. Project Description Alberta Development Partners, in partnership with Walton Street Capital (the “Developers”), intend to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment of the Foothills Fashion Mall (the “Project”). The redevelopment will include a mixed-use redevelopment with a commercial/retail component (734,979 square feet), a commercial parking structure and up to 800 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. Retail The project proposes to deconstruct portions of existing Foothills and renovate the remaining original structure, for a 388,084 square foot, one-level, enclosed shopping mall. In addition, various free standing buildings including the Commons At Foothills Mall Building, the Shops at Foothills Mall buildings, The Plaza at Foothills Mall, the Corner Bakery, Christy Sports and the Youth Activity Center building would all be deconstructed. In their place, eight new retail buildings are proposed along South College Avenue, ranging from 9,300 square feet to 31,715 square feet in size. Internal to the site, five new retail building are proposed to be located northwest of the existing enclosed mall. These five building range from 7,636 square feet to 12,000 square feet in size. To the southeast of the existing mall, four new restaurants are proposed ranging in size from 8,088 square feet to 124,000 square feet as well as a new, two-story 24,000 square foot Foothills Activity Center to replace the Youth Activity Center. Additionally, a new 86,754 square foot entertainment and theater building is proposed located southeast of the new restaurants. The large east green area and smaller west green plazas anchor the pedestrian network. The commercial component provides a total of 3,581 parking spaces via a six level, 84,663 foot parking structure and surface parking spaces. Residential The residential component of the project proposes up to 800 multi-family units distributed among five buildings that will include a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedroom units. Current plans call for the construction of 446 residential units. The residential component of the project includes 1,422 parking space via three separate subterranean structures (858 spaces), an above ground structure (472 spaces) and 92 open surface parking stalls. The residential buildings will range in height from two- to five-stories. Generally, the residential building heights get taller as the project develops from the north to south along Stanford Road. 85 May 7, 2013 What is a Metropolitan District? Title 32 of Colorado Revised Statues allows for the formation of a variety of Special Districts, including a Metropolitan District as proposed for Foothills Mall. Special Districts in Colorado are local governments, i.e., political subdivisions of the state, which make up a third level of government in the United States. (The federal and state governments are the other two levels.) Local governments the third level include counties, municipalities (cities and towns), school districts, and other types of government entities such as "authorities" and "special districts." Statute requires that a Metropolitan District develop a service plan that outlines the Public Improvements and services that the district will provide. The service plan must be submitted to the City Council for approval. After City Council approval the district holds an organizing election. The organizing election may occur at several times throughout the year. However, the TABOR required election must occur at either a State General Election (November) or a regular election (May). City Metropolitan District Policy On July 9, 2008 City Council adopted a Policy for Reviewing Proposed Service Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts (the “City Policy”), setting forth criteria to be considered when a service plan is submitted for consideration. As the City Policy states, it is “intended as a guide only…[and shall not] be construed to limit the discretion of City Council.” Therefore, City Council can, at its discretion, approve a service plan that serves a purpose not anticipated by the City Policy. The Developer has submitted an Amended Service Plan for the District that operationalizes the construction of public improvements, issuance of debt in the form of a bond, and other aspects of the Agreement as necessary. The Amended Service Plan does not conform with the City’s adopted Policy for Reviewing Proposed Service Plans for Title 32 Metropolitan Districts (the “City Policy” Resolution 2008-069). However, the Amended Service Plan does conform in all necessary ways with the Agreement considered by City Council and the URA for the purpose of encouraging the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. Although the Amended Service Plan does not conform to the City Policy, several of the key criteria are discussed nonetheless: • Provide public improvements resulting in enhanced benefits to existing or future businesses. A comprehensive Foothills Mall redevelopment will reinvigorate the larger Midtown area by attracting additional consumers. This benefit will likely accrue benefit to adjacent properties and retailers. The District will provide Public Improvements necessary to realize the Project. • Primarily commercial use. The Project is anticipated to include primarily commercial development with some residential rental development. • Enhance the quality of development in the City. As indicated in the project vision the goal is a vibrant and engaging residential destination that will likely help enhance the quality of Midtown area retail offerings. • Max Mill Levy. The max mill levy as proposed is 65.000 mills with 50.000 mills intended for debt and 15.000 mills for operations and maintenance of the District. The Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement stipulates that the operating mill levy is limited to 10.000 mills unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. 86 May 7, 2013 • Debt & Financial Projections. The Amended Service Plan allows for the issuance of an aggregate principal amount sufficient to generate net proceeds of bonds in the amount of $53.0 million. Any bond issuance by the District is subject to all the conditions precedent stipulated in the Agreement. The financial projections of the Amended Service Plan support the issuance of debt in this amount. • Multiple-District Structures. The current Service Plan does not contemplate a multiple- district structure. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City and URA will bear no liability of the debt issued by the District. The extent of the financial impact to the City or URA by the formation of the District is the pledge or revenues stipulated in the Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to the environmental impacts described in the Agenda Item Summary for Resolution 2013-042 related to the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement for the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public notice of the Service Plan was provided consistent with Colorado Revised Statutes.” City Manager Atteberry noted Council has received a modified version of this item in the read- before packet. Deputy City Attorney Daggett discussed the general purpose of the various changes to the item. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the City Charter provides that this Council cannot contractually obligate the taxes of future Councils. City Attorney Roy noted counsel unrelated to the City of Fort Collins provided an opinion on this item. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution 2013-044, as modified and including the amended agreement. Yeas: Cunniff, Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 87 May 7, 2013 Resolution 2013-045 Regarding the Redevelopment of Foothills Mall and Regarding Cooperation and Partnership with Larimer County on Economic Revitalization Efforts and the Use of Tax Increment Financing, Adopted as Amended The following is the staff memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an effort to address some of the concerns raised by Larimer County with regards to the use of tax increment financing, the proposed resolution directs the City and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to remit an amount equal to 50% of the property tax increment generated from the residential units associated with the Foothills Mall redevelopment project in each year that those funds are available after payment of debt service requirements for the District Bonds, as well as the personal property tax increment revenues from the Mall. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Representatives of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have been engaged for several months in a discussion of the potential impacts to the County of the use by the City and the URA of tax increment financing, and in particular, for the Foothills Mall redevelopment project. Both the City and County agree that the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall is important to both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County because of the public benefits such a project will provide the citizens, including blight remediation, civic pride, premier regional shopping and entertainment opportunities, and an increase in community investment. Furthermore, the City and the URA recognize that residential development generally is expected to have greater impact on County services than commercial development. Given that the Foothills Mall redevelopment includes a substantial residential component, the City agrees to remit an amount equal to 50% of the property tax increment generated from the residential portion of the project in each year that those funds are available after payment of debt service requirements for the District Bonds, subject to annual appropriation. The Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement to carry out this commitment. Additionally, the City Manager will work with the Authority and the County to develop an agreement through which the Authority will agree to remit to the County the portion of the property tax increment received by the Authority from the Foothills Mall that represents the County’s share of the personal property tax increment paid from the Foothills Mall. The County will be required to provide an accounting reasonably satisfactory to the City and the Authority of both personal and real property tax collected, at the County’s cost. The potential fiscal impacts to the County resulting from the use of tax increment financing are analyzed by a jointly developed fiscal impact model. A number of the assumptions within the fiscal impact have come into question, and there is a desire for an impact analysis model that allows for a more robust and holistic analysis. To this end, the City and the URA have agreed to work cooperatively with the County and, to the extent practicable, with other municipalities in the County, to develop an appropriate fiscal impact analysis model for evaluating financial impacts associated with the formation of tax increment financing districts, the redevelopment of lands within the city, 88 May 7, 2013 and the annexation of property into the city that will support further discussions with the County regarding these issues. The Mayor is also authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement to carry out this joint study. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This proposal will result in less revenue available to the URA to pledge to the Foothills Mall Redevelopment bond repayment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.” County Commissioner Gaiter stated the Commissioners are ready to meet with Council in order to begin this process. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2013-045, as modified. Councilmember Troxell requested that the County provide the City with its economic development strategy and encouraged a discussion in a broad context. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Campana, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak and Cunniff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adjourn to May 14, 2013, to consider any additional business that may come before the Council, including a possible Executive Session. Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Cunniff and Poppaw. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:20 a.m., Wednesday, May 8. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 89 May 14, 2013 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 14, 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. Executive Session Authorized Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to go into Executive Session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, for the purpose of meeting with attorneys for the City and affected members of City staff regarding potential litigation involving the City and related legal issues. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: The Council returned from Executive Session at 7:07 p.m.) Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, that Council waive, on behalf of the City, the attorney-client privilege that would otherwise apply to the confidential letter to the City Attorney from Dee Wisor of the law firm of Sherman and Howard, dated May 2, 2013, regarding the meaning and interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of Article V of the Fort Collins City Charter, and comparable provisions of the Colorado Constitution, and direct the City Attorney to release the letter to the public. Councilmember Poppaw commented that there is no question City Manager Atteberry was acting in good faith and it is outrageous and unconscionable to accuse him or any other staff member of a crime. She stated Mr. Sutherland’s accusations are completely inappropriate. Councilmember Cunniff stated it is important that the public understand there is no merit to Mr. Sutherland’s allegations. Mayor Weitkunat stated allegations of criminal misconduct against any person involved in public service, when those persons are acting in good faith regarding policy decisions, is not in the best interest of anyone in the community. 90 May 14, 2013 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell and Cunniff. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, for Council to suspend its Rules of Procedure at the May 21, 2013 meeting, to allow for additional citizen input at the meeting regarding agenda item No. 27, which deals with a Resolution Approving a Proposed Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy, and an Ordinance Exempting Prospect Energy from the Existing Moratorium on Oil and Gas Operations and Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing. Mayor Weitkunat noted the citizen input time allotment will be based on the number of people wishing to comment. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 91 DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich Timothy Wilder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is a request for an appropriation of $33,000 to support the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program from prior years in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund (KFCG). The Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program is a highly successful financial incentive program for encouraging the sustainable revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures. The Program was funded with Keep Fort Collins Great funds in the amount of $25,000 each year for 2013-2014. However, this year alone, the popular program received over $65,000 in loan funding requests from 12 applicants for 24 projects costing over $206,200 in materials and services. Without Rehabilitation Loan Program funding, many of these projects could not proceed. The request is for the use of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created by the 2012 unspent Design Assistance Program (DAP) budget. Both the Loan Program and the DAP were funded in 2012 from KFCG - Other Community Priorities. These two incentive programs are closely linked sub-programs of the Historic Preservation Program, and provide a continuum of financial support for qualified historic preservation projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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 COPY COPY COPY 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 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Beth Sowder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, changes City Code Section 4-196 from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. On February 19, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013, amending Chapter 4 of the City Code decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. This change was intended to include all animal offenses that constitute neighborhood nuisances. After further deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with an animal control officer as a criminal misdemeanor. Staff recommends changing this Code section from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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, 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, 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Beth Sowder AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code Related to the Service of a Civil Citation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is an effort to correct an inadvertent change that occurred with a previous Code change. This amendment will provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil infractions. This will apply to a second or subsequent violation within a twelve (12) month period for the same violation. This process already applies for Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits, so this change would make the process consistent for civil infractions. Additionally, this Code change specifies that a civil citation may be issued immediately for animal code violations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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 violation is of Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits. . . . -2- 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Kathleen Lane AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, makes two minor changes to the Code provisions relating to Municipal Court Referees. First, it removes the residency requirement for such Referees from Section 19-36 so that the Assistant Municipal Judge, who lives outside the City limits, can serve as a back-up Referee, especially on animal infraction cases. Second, it revises Section 19-41 so that all Referees have the same authority to reduce or waive penalties and assessments when appropriate. It removes the previous distinction between the authority of the Parking Referee and the Civil Infraction Referee, which was creating some confusion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. (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) The 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. In addition, the Referee may impose any other costs, damages, expenses and orders that may be authorized under Subsection 1-15(f). (b) 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Steve Catanach, Janet McTague, Virginia Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable Permits to Non-City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, eliminates the requirement that a non-City utility provider apply for a permit to continue providing electric service to properties annexed into the city. A revocable permit would automatically be granted at annexation and revoked upon transfer of service. The second proposed Code change would allow the Utilities Executive Director to adopt minor technical revisions that clarify an existing standard or improve conformity toward best engineering practices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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 annexed 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 City 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 of service transfer, all electric service within any annexed area shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Division. If the City has 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 furnishing service to 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 VI 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Tom Vosburg Steve Catanach AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Second 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 Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, grants the Utilities Executive Director authority to approve temporary exemptions or technical modifications to the City’s various electric utility regulations for the purpose of supporting City-managed special pilot projects, equipment testing or research partnerships. This authority will not be extended to allow exemptions of such regulations and standards to on going operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing or research projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. COPY COPY COPY 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, 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, 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Lawrence Pollack, Steve Catanach, Viriginia Purvis AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project Located on the Woodward Property. 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, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, appropriates $1,297,080 from the General Fund Reserves for the relocation of the PRPA transmission line. Immediate appropriation is needed to allow the transmission line relocation to move forward so that Woodward's building site plans may remain on schedule. Delay in authorizing the appropriation may necessitate the need for PRPA to construct and remove a temporary transmission line as well as design and construct the relocated permanent transmission line. This effort would require that PRPA incur additional costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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 COPY COPY COPY May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 10 avoid the need and cost of temporary transmission lines. Staff is requesting an appropriation for $1,297,080 from the 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 ORDINANCE NO. 076, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND 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 Woodward 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 further permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Susie Gordon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance shifts $135,560 that has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program’s reserve account into the City’s General Fund account so that the money can be used for the purposes intended. Revenues are paid into the Waste Innovation Program by City departments that “self haul” trash from municipal operations for disposal in the Larimer County Landfill. The fund is designated to pay for projects that enhance these same departments’ ability to divert more waste away from the landfill. Unspent funds from several previous years had been moved into a “reserve” account; this action moves the funds back into the General Fund. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City Manager created a fund in 2010 to pay for projects that improve our organizational ability to divert waste generated by municipal activities from being disposed in the Larimer County landfill. Discarded material and trash that City crews self-haul to the landfill is charged only 28 cents/cubic yard by Larimer County Solid Waste Department, which is passed through in payment to the state for landfill management/monitoring programs. The balance of the regular “tipping fee” at the landfill, $5.27 per cubic yard, is placed in a Waste Innovation Program (WIP) fund. These WIP revenues are received from 15 City departments that self-haul various types of waste to the landfill in truckloads. (It doesn’t include trash collected from City office buildings and facilities by our contracted trash hauler.) Funds Collected Funds Spent 2010 - $79,960 $15,510 2011 - $101,864 $13,860 2012 - $136,114 $19,248 2013 – TBD $34,778 plus additional commitments of $152,986 $52,000 contributed to Integrated Recycling Facility Waste Innovation Program (WIP) funds are used to administer grants that allow City departments to initiate new waste diversion/recycling projects, with special attention to departments that contribute most heavily to the fund (i.e. amount of waste they self-haul to the landfill). By design, the WIP should be a steadily decreasing fund as less waste is taken to the landfill for disposal as a result of operational improvements. An interdepartmental group of employees participates in awarding funds when requests are received from departments. Members of this group also act as liaisons for communicating to crews about the need to reduce the City’s use of the landfill, helping to actively incorporate waste reduction and recycling strategies as Best Management Practices in City operations, and to solicit ideas for using WIP funds. Past projects funded to date include: • Forestry Division has used funds on equipment rental to grind large-diameter tree trunks and stumps; • Purchase of solar-powered trash/recycling bin containers for use in public areas; • 30 sets of twinned recycling/trash bins for offices and shops; • Data collection activities for specific sources of waste; and, • Partial funding to help finance construction of a publicly accessible Integrated Recycling Facility, approved in the 2013/2014 BFO process. June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 14 Upcoming Approved projects: • Water Utilities’ Stormwater Division will buy equipment to create a soils recovery facility. The new screening capability that Stormwater will use on excavated soils will enable crews to process waste materials into a variety of soil and structural fill products. This project is expected to reduce Utilities’ landfill usage from an annual average of about 11,000 cubic yards per year down to as little as 5,000 cubic yards. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The action will make $135,560 in funding available for City organization waste reduction projects that have been submitted to and approved for funding via the Waste Innovation Program internal competitive process in 2013. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The WIP funds are intended to help City departments reduce their trash sent to the landfill. One major project approved for 2013 is Water Utilities’ Stormwater Division plans to buy equipment to create a soils recovery facility. The new screening capability that Stormwater will use on excavated soils will enable crews to process waste materials into a variety of soil and structural fill products. This project is expected to reduce Utilities’ landfill usage from an annual average of about 11,000 cubic yards per year down to as little as 5,000 cubic yards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 077, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND DIVERSION PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE WASTE INNOVATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, in 2010, the City created the Waste Innovation Program (the “WIP”) fund, where revenues collected for the program are held in a reserve account in the General Fund to pay for projects that improve the City's ability to divert waste from municipal activities from being disposed of in the Larimer County Landfill; and WHEREAS, the funds are used to administer grants that allow City departments to initiate new waste diversion and recycling projects with emphasis on departments that have larger quantities of waste that is self-hauled to the Larimer County Landfill; and WHEREAS, an interdepartmental group of employees participate as liaisons for incorporating waste reduction into City practices, promoting recycling strategies, and awarding WIP funds when requests are received from participating City departments; and WHEREAS, the group has approved one major project for 2013 by the Water Utilities Stormwater Division (“Utilities”) including the processing of waste materials into a variety of soil and structural fill products; and WHEREAS, the project will reduce Utilities’ landfill usage from about 11,000 cubic yards per year down to approximately 5,000 cubic yards per year; and WHEREAS, other waste reduction and diversion projects are ready for review for possible WIP funding; 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 prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($135,560) for waste reduction and diversion projects approved by the Waste Innovation Program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley Chris Lochra AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project for Early Flood Warning Capabilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Stormwater Utility has received a grant from the State of Colorado totaling $17,881. The grant funds will be used to enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the increased risk of flooding caused by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used for the match of $5,960. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Initial Grant ($10,958) As a result of the High Park Fire, vegetative cover has been lost and an increased volume of stormwater runoff and debris is now anticipated. In addition, runoff velocities are projected to increase significantly. The City of Fort Collins will install a new streamflow sensor in the Cache la Poudre Canyon to provide an additional one to two (1 – 2) hours of flash flood warning time above that currently available from the existing sensor located at the mouth of the canyon. Data will be received into the existing City Stormwater Floodwarning System and available to Stormwater utility on-call staff to assist with the evaluation and appropriate implementation of emergency response and public notification. Amendment 1 ($6,923) This grant funding will provide enhanced reception and utility of Poudre River in-stream water quality data from equipment that was installed post-fire in order to monitor water quality conditions upstream of the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake. When certain water quality parameters are exceeded, the intake should be closed to prevent costly treatment measures and potential damage to the WTP. Currently, when stream water quality deteriorates past certain thresholds, the WTP Operators receive text message alarms directing them to close the WTP Poudre River intake. This new equipment will provide real-time water quality data directly to the Operators control screens, allowing them to evaluate stream conditions dynamically and receive alarms both visually and via text message. The equipment will be installed by July 31, 2013. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The early flood warning and water quality monitoring will contribute to enhanced emergency response and public notification in case of flooding and will assist in determining when the Poudre River WTP intake should be closed. The grant requires a 25% match ($5,960). The Ordinance provides for the matching funds to be transferred from existing capital Stormwater appropriations for stream gaging. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE INTO THE STORMWATER FUND, AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE FLOOD MAPPING/STREAM GAGING CAPITAL PROJECT TO THE POST FIRE FLOOD WARNING GRANT PROJECT FOR EARLY FLOOD WARNING CAPABILITIES WHEREAS, Stormwater Utility has received two grants from the State of Colorado totaling $17,881 that will be used to enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the increased risk of flooding caused by conditions existing after the High Park Fire (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the initial grant of $10,958 will allow the City to install a new streamflow sensor in the Cache la Poudre Canyon to provide an additional one to two hours of flash flood warning time above that currently available from the existing sensor located at the mouth of the canyon; and WHEREAS, the second grant of $6,923 will allow the City to provide enhanced reception and utility of Poudre River in-stream water quality data from equipment that was installed post-fire in order to monitor water quality conditions upstream of the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) intake; and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado grants require a 25% local funding match, totaling $5,960, which will be transferred from existing appropriations in the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging stormwater capital project to the Post Fire Flood Warning grant project (for a total project cost of $23,841); and WHEREAS, the Project will contribute to enhanced emergency response and public notification in case of flooding and will assist in determining when the Poudre River WTP intake should be closed; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Stormwater Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. 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 unanticipated grant revenue in the Stormwater Fund the sum of SEVENTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS ($17,881) for the Post Fire Flood Warning grant project. Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($5,960) in the Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging capital project is authorized for transfer to the Post Fire Flood Warning grant project and appropriated therein for expenditure on the Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: John Stokes Daylan Figgs AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City will use a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (Soapstone Prairie) as match towards the grant, as well as management funds currently obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO) research and monitoring work to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico. This will be the fifth such match authorized as the City, in partnership with RMBO, has been successful on four previous grant applications. The previous partnership efforts have resulted in a broader understanding of the grasslands bird species that nest on Soapstone Prairie and the contiguous Meadow Springs Ranch, and has contributed to the conservation of these species’ winter ranges in Mexico. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, in partnership with NAD, the American Bird Conservancy, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, submitted a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant to implement actions to improve and restore habitat for priority grassland birds on their wintering and breeding grounds. Neotropical birds are a group of birds that breed and raise young in the United States and Canada and migrate to the warmer climates to winter in Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. This category of bird species includes high priority grassland birds found on Soapstone Prairie, Meadow Springs Ranch, and other properties in the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains (LFMTP) project area. The importance of the LFMTP area to 19 high priority grassland birds has been documented through work performed by RMBO and NAD and is reflected in the adopted Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan. However, the LFMTP area lies only within the breeding range of these species and has no influence on the conservation of these important species and their habitat within their wintering grounds. In this phase of the U.S.-Mexico Grassland Bird Conservation project, the focus will shift toward the implementation of actions to improve and restore habitat for priority grassland birds on their wintering and breeding grounds. The proposed actions focus primarily on increasing habitat availability and suitability for Sprague’s Pipit populations in key wintering areas in Chihuahua, Mexico that are threatened by accelerating habitat destruction and degradation. The second component of the project will focus on increasing habitat availability and suitability for Mountain Plover populations at an important breeding site in Colorado that is threatened by impacts caused by sylvatic plague epidemics, prairie dog control, oil and gas development and recreational use. The proposed work will also directly benefit up to 18 other high-priority grassland birds within the Laramie Foothills, and 27 high priority species at the wintering sites in Chihuahua. Monitoring efforts within the Laramie Foothills funded by past Neotropical Bird Grants have included extensive point count surveys and demographic monitoring of grassland bird productivity on Soapstone Prairie. NAD is using the point count data to identify important bird resources, breeding sites and habitats that warrant special management attention, guide potential impacts away from sensitive species and habitats, and track population changes over time and in response to management and other influences. In addition, NAD is using the reproductive and demographic data to determine baseline reproductive rates and assess affects of recreation and grazing management. Active monitoring has also helped guide management in response to a recent plague event that severely reduced active prairie dog colonies and reduced the Mountain Plover population from 50-60 birds in 2008 to just 12 birds in 2011. Due in part to ongoing monitoring, NAD was able to employ a variety of management techniques such as dusting for flea control within the few remaining prairie dog colonies, prescribed fire, and strategic grazing in order to prevent the last of the prairie dogs and Mountain Plovers from disappearing. June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 16 Monitoring will continue through the use of grant funds to track the effects of management efforts on grassland bird density and distribution and will be used to help guide decisions concerning the potential for impacts associated with energy development. Monitoring efforts will focus on Neotropical birds associated with black-tailed prairie dog colonies and within the Foothills Shrublands (mountain mahogany) and Salt desert scrub (four-wing saltbush) ecological systems. This information will inform management decisions and the sustainable stewardship of Soapstone Prairie. This project will be coordinated and implemented by RMBO, in cooperation with NAD, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), Pronatura Noreste, the Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and in coordination with the State of Chihuahua’s Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology, the Rio Grande Joint Venture, the Chihuahuan Desert Grassland Regional Alliance, Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation, local communities and private ranchers in Chihuahua, and representatives from INIFAP (National Forestry and Agricultural Research Institute) and SAGARPA (Secretary of Agriculture, Ranching, Rural Development, Fisheries, and Food supply) in Mexico. A unique feature of this project is that it involves a broad-based collaboration among international, regional, and local organizations from public, private, and NGO sectors, and most entities are contributing significant cash and in-kind resources and expertise to the project goals. This range-wide, integrated approach to grassland bird conservation includes two distinct but complementary projects that address high priority needs of grassland birds on both their breeding and wintering grounds. The NAD match for this $200,000 grant will come from the Department’s 2011 purchase of the 80 acre Noonan Tract and the 200 acre Bowes Homestead tract, both additions to Soapstone Prairie, and from funds used to manage Soapstone Prairie. The funds used to purchase the Noonan and Bowes Homestead tracts are not federal in origin and have not been used to match other Federal grant funding sources. Of the grant dollars received, approximately $75,000 will be spent locally on RMBO staff salaries and overhead. The remainder of the funds will be used to support the project in Mexico. RMBO will administer the grant. In order for this land purchase to be considered as match for the USFWS grant, the City will be required to record a “Notice of Grant Requirements” that will require the City to be bound by the terms of the grant agreement for the grant, to ensure the long term conservation of the property, and to obtain the consent of the USFWS prior to transfer or encumbrance of the property. The City will also enter into an agreement with RMBO obligating RMBO to comply with the terms of the grant agreement. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City will use the purchase of the 80 acre Noonan Tract and the 200 acre Bowes Homestead tract (see Attachment 1) and funds already obligated for the management of Soapstone Prairie as match toward the grant. This will not obligate any additional funds but will provide a secondary benefit to the funds already spent to acquire this portion of Soapstone Prairie and already obligated for management of the property. The two new tracts are managed as part of Soapstone Prairie and are already conserved by NAD. The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory will receive $200,000 from USFWS to fund conservation work within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains project area, and in the Chihuahuan Desert of Mexico. Of the grant dollars received, approximately $75,000 will be spent locally on RMBO staff salaries and overhead. The remainder of the funds will be used to support the project in Mexico. RMBO will administer the grant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted in 2007) identifies ecological and cultural values of highest priority and sets in place management objectives for the property. Activities identified in the 2013-2014 BFO budget cycle focus on evaluating management efforts to increase and sustain a black-tailed prairie dog complex between 3,000 and 4,000 acres. Black-tailed prairie dogs are considered a keystone species within the shortgrass prairie ecosystem, are closely tied to several conservation targets identified in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan, including grassland bird species such as mountain plover. In addition, continued monitoring of grassland and shrubland bird communities will be used to help guide management decisions. Grant dollars will be used to supplement funds identified for this budgeted activity and help to stretch the NAD budget even further. June 4, 2013 -3- ITEM 16 The NAD has built a successful partnership with RMBO to fund conservation work of this type in the Laramie Foothills since 2005. RMBO is a local conservation organization dedicated to the conservation of birds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board considered the grant project at its March 14, 2012 meeting and unanimously recommended that Council adopt the Ordinance to authorize the use of funds to purchase the Noonan tract and Bowes Homestead tract by the Natural Areas Department as match for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to place a Notice of Grant Agreement on the Noonan and Bowes Homestead tracts. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach specific to this grant was not conducted. The purpose of the grant is to implement monitoring objectives outlined in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan. This Plan was adopted after public review and comment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Parcels used as match for 2012 Neotropical Migratory Bird grant 2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes ¹ Noonan and Bowes Homestead Parcels Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2011 Project Area Larimer County 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Bowes Homestead and Noonan Parcels RED MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE SOAPSTONE PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA MEADOW SPRINGS RANCH Noonan Parcel Bowes Homestead Parcel ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 079, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE NOONAN TRACT AND THE BOWES HOMESTEAD TRACT AS MATCH FOR A NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT GRANT ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WHEREAS, in March 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 037, 2008, authorizing the use of the City’s Zimmerman Conservation Easement as a matching contribution for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”); and WHEREAS, in April 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 032, 2009, authorizing the use of a 440-acre portion of Bernard Ranch as a matching contribution for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant administered by the FWS; and WHEREAS, in May, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 053, 2010, authorizing the use of a different 660-acre portion of Bernard Ranch as a matching contribution for a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant administered by the FWS; and WHEREAS, the City has worked cooperatively with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (“RMBO”) to carry out the terms of the previous grant projects involving the study of neotropical birds, a category of bird species that includes high priority grassland birds found on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area; and WHEREAS, two recent additions to Soapstone Prairie known as the Noonan tract and the Bowes Homestead tract, as shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the “Property”), have been identified as an appropriate area to be conserved as habitat for neotropical birds in the region; and WHEREAS, RMBO, together with other grant partners, is continuing to study neotropical birds and has applied for an additional grant of $200,000 from FWS; and WHEREAS, RMBO hopes to use this new grant to continue its neotropical bird study as part of the Laramie Foothills Mountain to Plains Project, which includes Soapstone and other geographical areas that the birds inhabit; and WHEREAS, the FWS grant terms will require RMBO to match the grant funds awarded; and WHEREAS, the funds already expended by the City to purchase the Property may be used to match the grant funds awarded by FWS to RMBO; and WHEREAS, in order to commit the Property as the matching contribution for the FWS grant, FWS will require that the City record a Notice of Grant Requirements in the real property records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder for the Property; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Grant Requirements requires the City to be bound by the terms of the grant agreement between FWS and RMBO, including the obligation to ensure the long term conservation of the Property and to obtain the consent of the FWS prior to conveying or encumbering the Property; and WHEREAS, the City’s consent to these restrictions on its property constitutes an encumbrance on the City’s real property; and WHEREAS, the City will also enter into an agreement with RMBO requiring RMBO to comply with the terms of the grant agreement between FWS and RMBO; and WHEREAS, the data acquired from the study will allow City staff to more effectively form conservation strategies and manage high priority grassland birds that are found at Soapstone; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, the City Council is authorized to sell or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that use of the Noonan and Bowes Homestead tracts as a match towards a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant to the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, including execution and recording of a Notice of Grant Requirements as described herein, is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a Notice of Grant Requirements consistent with the terms of this Ordinance, 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 best interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Property to be encumbered, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions Noonan Tract: The South One-half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 11 North, Range 69 West of the 6 th P.M., Larimer County, State of Colorado. Bowes Homestead Tract: The E1/2 of the NE ¼, the N1/2 of the SE ¼ and the NE ¼ of the SW1/4 of Section 24, Township 11 North, Range 69 West of the 6 th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado. DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Ginny Sawyer Ed Holder, Poudre School District AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee-in-lieu of land dedication for both Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law. Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts by 11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district receives by 6.9 percent. The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In April 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Thompson and Poudre School Districts entered into Intergovernmental Agreements regarding land dedication for new developments, including a provision for fees-in-lieu of land dedication. Poudre School District has asked that the amount of the fees be increased to reflect the current cost of acquiring school sites. Thompson School District has not requested a change. The City’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Poudre School District allows for periodic updates to the fees and land dedication requirements. Since adoption of the IGA, fees have been adjusted in 2001, 2006, and 2011. Fees are based on a number of factors including school site size, student population projections, enrollment capacities of each type of school (elementary, junior high and high schools), and the cost of developed land within the school district. Site sizes and enrollment capacities are set by School District policy. School Districts in Colorado are allowed by State law to either require school site dedications from residential developers or collect a fee-in-lieu of such land dedication. The calculation of this fee must be closely tied to the cost of land to be dedicated, as well as the factors listed above. This fee increase is at the request of PSD and is based on a land value analysis performed for the District in late 2012 (Attachment 2). The effect of the proposed change in per dwelling unit costs would be as follows: Poudre School District Fee per dwelling unit: Current Fee Revised Fee 1-4 attached dwelling units $1,600 $1,710 5 or more attached dwelling units $ 800 $ 855 June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 17 The Intergovernmental Agreement requires that the City conduct a public hearing prior to any changes in the fee or land requirement. The Poudre School District Board has reviewed its methodology for this program and requested that the City Council approve this revision. The detailed methodology for calculating the fees are provided in Exhibits A and B of the Ordinance. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed Ordinance will not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins because the fees are collected on behalf of Poudre School District. Revenues from the fees will pass through City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20. This Ordinance implements a fee increase requested by Poudre School District. The increased fee will raise the cost of residential development in the community collected at the time of building permit by $110 per single family unit Multi- family unit fees (over 5 units) are increased by $55 per dwelling unit. This is a 6.9% increase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH This action was reviewed and approved at the February 26, 2013 Poudre School District Board Meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. PSD Board of Education Agenda Item Summary, February 26, 2013 2. Real Estate Analysis, November 16, 2012 3. PSD Board of Education Exhibit A and B 4. Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and PSD Poudre School District Board of Education Meeting Cover Sheet February 26, 2013 Meeting Print Agenda Item: Approval of the Land Dedication or Payment in Lieu Agreement Update Summary: Type of Communication: Type of Action Requested: Other Action Policy Facts: EL 2.8.9 submit to the Board all matters regarding which Board action is required by law, along with the Superintendent's recommendations and required policy compliance assurances. Background: Poudre School District currently has intergovernmental agreements regarding school site land dedication with Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, the Town of Windsor, and the Town of Wellington. In even years, the District reviews the data used in determining land dedication and in-lieu payments described in these agreements. Board action is required to approve any recommended changes to the agreement. The only change being recommended is to increase the developed land value from $89,000 per acre to $95,000 per acre. All other criteria will remain unchanged. If approved, the current in-lieu payment of $1,600 per dwelling unit will increase to $1,710 for the next two years. Recommendation: The Superintendent recommends the Board of Education approve updating the School District Planning Standards and Methodology as presented in the attached Exhibits A & B for use in 2013 and 2014 for Intergovernmental Agreements concerning Land Dedications or Payments in Lieu of Land Dedications. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: Insight_with_Exhibits_A_and_B- Payment_in_Lieu_of_Land_Agreement_Update.docx Insight -Payment In Lieu of Land Update Cover Memo Poudre Agenda School of Business/District Work Board Session of Education Meeting February Page 48 of 26, 53 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT INSIGHT TO: Nancy Wright, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Mike Spearnak, Director of Planning Design and Construction SUBJECT: Land Dedication or Payment in Lieu Agreements DATE: January 15, 2013 Executive Summary Poudre School District currently has school site land dedication agreements with Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, the Town of Windsor, and the Town of Wellington. As part of these agreements, land is dedicated or a payment in lieu of land is paid based on “School District Planning Standards” adopted by the Board of Education. These standards include such factors as: student yields, enrollment capacities, site acreage requirements, and developed land costs. These standards are reviewed every two years, and were last updated in December of 2010. Based on the appraisal of developed land valuation supplied by Shannon and Associates, the 2010 update resulted in Board approval of the in-lieu payment of $1,800 per dwelling unit being reduced to $1,600 per dwelling unit. In November of this year, Shannon & Associates was again asked to review current data and provide an updated opinion regarding developed land valuation. The report concluded: “Based on this information and interviews with market participants, it is our opinion that residential land values are slowly appreciating. Based on the current information, it is reasonable to increase the existing $89,000 “interior tract land value per acre” to $95,000 per acre.” If approved, this will result in an increase from the current in-lieu payment of $1,600 per dwelling unit to $1,710 per dwelling unit. Since this review and update only happens once every two years, Staff recommends that the in-lieu payment adjustment, though minor, be approved to avoid a larger adjustment in the future. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Education approve updating the School District Planning Standards and Methodology as presented in the attached Exhibits A & B for use in 2013 and 2014 for Intergovernmental Agreements concerning Land Dedications or Payments in Lieu of Land Dedications. Poudre Agenda School of Business/District Work Board Session of Education Meeting February Page 49 of 26, 53 2013 Exhibit A Poudre School District 2013/14 School District Planning Standards i. Student Yield Per Dwelling Unit1 Category A 1 to 4 attached dwelling units Category B 5 or more attached dwelling units Elementary School 0.35 ½ Category A Middle School 0.10 ½ Category A High School 0.09 ½ Category A Total 0.54 students ii. School Facility Enrollment Capacities2 Elementary School 525 students Middle School 750 students High School 1,800 students iii. School Site Acreage Requirements2 Elementary School 15 acres Middle School 30 acres High School 80 acres iv. Developed Land Value for 20123 $95,000 1Average student yields for elementary, middle school, and high school based on information collected by Western Demographics, Inc. includes all residential dwelling types within the School District. 2Based on Poudre School District’s current educational specifications 3Average land value based on report prepared by Shannon and Associates dated March 14, 2006 and updated August 13, 2008, December 29, 2010, and November 16, 2012. Adjustments to occur every 2 years in the even year based on changes to the Larimer County Assessor’s “Residential Lot Classification”. Poudre Agenda School of Business/District Work Board Session of Education Meeting February Page 50 of 26, 53 2013 Exhibit B Poudre School District 2012/13 School District Methodology Based on the School District Planning Standards contained in Exhibit A, calculation of land dedication or in-lieu payments uses the following procedures: 1. The student yield is determined by the number of attached dwelling units. (e.g. Category A, Elementary School = 0.35). 2. The amount of land required per student is calculated by dividing the acreage by the capacity. (e.g. Elementary School = 15 acres / 525 students = 0.029). 3. The acreage per dwelling unit is determined by multiplying the student yield by the per student land requirement. (e.g. 0.35 yield x 0.029 acres = 0.010) 4. To convert the land dedication requirement into in-lieu payments, the acreage per dwelling unit is multiplied by the developed land value. (e.g. 0.010 acres x $95,000 = $950.00) Summary The total land dedication or in-lieu payment per dwelling unit is: Category A 1 to 4 attached units Category B 5 or more attached units Land PILO1 Land PILO1 Elementary School 0.0100 acres $ 950 0.005 acres $475 Middle School 0.0040 acres $ 380 0.002 acres $190 High School 0.0040 acres $ 380 0.002 acres $190 Total 0.0180 acres $1,710 0.009 acres $855 To determine the land or in lieu payments for a proposed residential development, the per dwelling unit totals above would be multiplied by the total number of dwelling units in the development. (e.g. 300 single family units = 0.0180 x 300 = 5.4 acre dedication or $1,710 x 300 = $513,000 PILO) 1 PILO means “payment-in-lieu-of” land dedication Poudre Agenda School of Business/District Work Board Session of Education Meeting February Page 51 of 26, 53 2013 S H A N N O N & A S S O C I A T E S REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 215 W. Oak Street, Suite 501 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone (970) 482-1010 • Fax (970) 221-4444 shannonassc@shannonmai.com November 16, 2012 Ed Holder Poudre School District 2445 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: A consulting assignment to update the Average Developed Residential Land Cost Used in the “Methodology for Calculating Land Dedication Requirements and In-Lieu Payments”, Fort Collins, CO. Dear Mr. Holder: Pursuant to your request, we conducted a consulting assignment regarding an update of a “model” that allows the Poudre School District to estimate the average developed residential land value used in the “Methodology for Calculating Land Dedication Requirements and In-Lieu Payments”. The function of this consultation is to provide the Poudre School District with an updated land value from our prior assignments in 2006 , 2008, and 2010. This report should not be considered an appraisal. This report is written in accordance with Standard 5 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). To complete this analysis we: Reviewed the 2006 and 2008 prior consulting assignments. Reviewed the letter that Shannon & Associates provided on December 29, 2010. Reviewed more recent sales. Met with Jody Masters, chief residential land appraiser, with the Larimer County Assessor’s office. Our sales research and discussions with the Assessor’s office indicated that a significant amount of the bank owned residential subdivision land is now owned by developers and new home starts are up significantly from 2010. The current market relative to the market in 2010 is showing some vibrancy and appreciation in activity and sale prices. ATTACHMENT 2 SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 2 Client/Function The function of this consultation is to provide the Poudre School District with a methodology for deriving a method of developing land value for building permit contributions to Poudre School District. As part of this function we have provided a current developed land value as a component of this analysis. According to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), Code of Professional Ethics, Appraisal Consulting is defined as: "The act or process of developing an analysis, recommendation, or opinion, where an opinion of value is a component of the analysis leading to the assignment results." General Information According to Mr. Holder (PSD Construction Manager), the Poudre School District uses a formula to calculate a “cash in-lieu fee” that is charged when a residential building permit is issued within the Poudre School District. This fee is collected for the Poudre School District by the governmental jurisdiction issuing the permit. The fee is designed to cover the costs of constructing new schools in the Poudre School District based on a growing student population. The Poudre School District estimates that each new dwelling unit generates the following additional land demand: Typically, additional land for new school construction is located in those areas that are experiencing new residential development activity. Since the school is often competing with developers for land in these areas, it is reasonable to assume that the Poudre School District will pay “fair market value” for their land purchases. The current land cost estimate, used by Poudre School District is based on “developed land value”, which includes streets, utilities, curb and gutters installed around the site. Development costs to the Poudre School District are essentially interior site infrastructure. Often this type of land is found within a subdivision as an undeveloped or "interior tract". School Type Land Needed (in acres) School Type Land Needed (in acres) Elementary 0.01000 Elementary 0.00500 Junior High 0.00400 Junior High 0.00200 High 0.00400 High 0.00200 Total 0.01800 Total 0.00900 1 to 4 Attached Units 5 or More Attached Units SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 3 Land Development Stages Land costs for residential development parcels vary on a number of factors. Location is the most obvious factor. Another significant factor is the level of “entitlements” that the development parcel has obtained from the local government. Entitlements are simply the extent of land approvals that the parcel has obtained. The following table details the stages of development that a typical development parcel must pass through on its way from vacant land to approval as finished residential home sites. SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 4 Residential Land Development Stages Degree of Development Comments Unannexed These are properties that lie outside of city limits within the county. Typically these properties have less development potential, or must be annexed as part of developing the property. Properties that lie on the fringe of a municipal area are often annexed into the city limits as part of the development process. Annexed Typically, parcels that lie within a municipality will be allowed to be developed to a higher density than those in unincorporated areas. Final Plat Approval This is significant achievement for a development parcel and can take months/years to obtain from the local government. This final plat approval provides developers with a legal right to develop the property per a detailed plan that spells out the number of lots, street layout, and almost every detail of the subdivision. This level of “entitlement” significantly reduces the risk/time of developing the parcel and developers are typically willing to pay a significant premium for parcels that have obtained final plat approval. Developers commonly refer to this level of entitlement as “paper lots”. Improved Subdivision At this stage, the streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter, utilities, streetlights have been installed. The only remaining task is to construct homes. This phase is called “finished lots”. Sometimes developers will have larger tracts within a finished subdivision that they did not put the streets or infrastructure in the initial construction phase. These interior tracts are typically have all of the exterior streets with utilities around these parcels. Often, such interior sites need to obtain more detailed and final entitlements prior to building anything within them. Land at this stage of development is less expensive and actually more appropriate for school sites because schools do not need all the small residential lots with utility lines to each of them. SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 5 Subdivision Land Values The following tables are residential land sales from our initial 2006 valuation. General Location Development Stage Area Sale Date Sales Price Land Area AC Price Per Acre E/S WCR 15, ½ mi S of WCR 72 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Windsor Jun-05 $848,000 105.00 $8,076 NEC & SEC WCR 21 & WCR 70 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Windsor Jun-05 $2,542,500 291.20 $8,731 6312 E Harmony Rd Raw Land - Annexed Fort Collins Oct-04 $2,885,460 292.50 $9,865 SE N CR 54 & CR 11 Raw Land - Annexed Fort Collins Nov-05 $868,210 85.50 $10,155 1949 E Douglas Rd Raw Land - Annexed Fort Collins Oct-05 $1,000,000 80.00 $12,500 NEC E Prospect & N CR 5 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Timnath Mar-05 $5,000,000 377.50 $13,245 6625 County Road 9 Raw Land - Annexed Wellington Sep-04 $1,300,000 97.50 $13,333 NEC & NWC WCR 17 & WCR 62 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Windsor Jul-05 $4,165,000 282.00 $14,770 283 N County Road 3 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Fort Collins Jan-05 $1,040,000 64.98 $16,005 NE Hwy 1 & CR 60 Raw Land - Un-Annexed Wellington Apr-05 $1,900,000 113.75 $16,703 LCR 3 & CR 26. Raw Land - Annexed Windsor Jun-05 $5,800,000 306.51 $18,923 6113 E County Road 36 Raw Land - Annexed Fort Collins Dec-05 $11,253,900 375.00 $30,010 LCR 35 & LCR 3 Raw Land - Annexed Timnath Dec-05 $11,253,900 373.30 $30,147 NWC WCR 17 & WCR 64 Raw Land - Annexed Windsor Apr-05 $2,825,280 92.13 $30,667 LCR 9 E of Westchase Rd Raw Land - Annexed Fort Collins Dec-04 $1,042,800 27.00 $38,622 Bellweather Farm Paper Lots - Annexed Fort Collins Nov-05 $924,000 14.30 $64,615 Park Meadows Paper Lots - Annexed Wellington Mar-05 $4,765,000 70.00 $68,071 Columbine Estates Paper Lots - Annexed Wellington Aug-05 $10,778,000 133.00 $81,038 The Meadows - Outlot C Interior Tracts - Annexed Wellington May-04 $1,511,000 16.15 $93,560 Park South – 2 nd Interior Tracts - Annexed Fort Collins Oct-03 $1,000,000 10.42 $95,969 Van de Water Interior Tracts - Annexed Loveland Listing $2,943,000 29.43 $100,000 Rigden Farm Outlot Interior Tracts - Annexed Fort Collins Listing $2,744,280 25.00 $109,771 Buffalo Creek Finished lots - Annexed Wellington Aug-04 $1,072,400 4.61 $232,625 The Meadows Finished lots - Annexed Wellington Jan-05 $850,000 3.05 $278,689 The Meadows Finished lots - Annexed Wellington Nov-04 $750,000 2.67 $280,479 Poudre Heights Finished lots - Annexed Windsor Jul-04 $1,178,500 4.20 $280,595 Buffalo Creek Finished lots - Annexed Wellington Aug-05 $932,400 3.31 $282,118 Knolls – Wellington South Finished lots - Annexed Wellington May-05 $1,101,059 3.84 $286,749 Vista Grande Finished lots - Annexed Fort Collins Nov-05 $2,880,000 8.25 $349,091 Clydesdale Park Finished lots - Annexed Fort Collins Aug-05 $4,100,000 10.57 $387,997 Interior Tracts: Min: $93,560 Max: $109,771 Avg: $99,825 Med: $97,985 Count: 4 2006 Residential Development Land Sales Analysis SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 6 The following table shows residential land sales since our 2008 update through 2010. General Location Development Stage Area Sale Date Sale Price Land Area AC Price Per Acre W 71st St Raw Land- Annexed Loveland Sep-10 $800,000 122.00 $6,557 10428 County Road 7 Raw Land- Un-annexed Wellington Apr-08 $1,100,000 94.09 $11,691 County Road 50 Raw Land- Un-annexed Laporte Mar-08 $405,000 27.50 $14,727 W 50th St @ N. Taft Ave. Paper lots- Annexed Loveland Jun-10 $1,850,000 124.00 $14,919 County Road 4 @ Hasse Ct Raw Land- Un-annexed Berthoud Mar-08 $900,000 54.00 $16,667 4308 Kechter Rd Raw Land- Un-annexed Fort Collins Jun-08 $3,079,000 128.00 $24,055 8353 E US Hwy 34 Raw Land- Un-annexed Loveland May-08 $2,663,600 88.79 $29,999 SW Frontage Rd Raw Land- Annexed Fort Collins Aug-10 $800,000 23.44 $34,130 2850 E Harmony Rd Raw Land- Annexed Fort Collins Nov-08 $1,000,000 28.30 $35,336 1750 Mountain River Rd Interior Tract- Un-annexed Berthoud Sep-10 $427,000 6.30 $67,778 4305 E Harmony Rd Interior Tract- Annexed Fort Collins Jun-08 $1,500,000 19.76 $75,911 137 W Willox Ln Interior Tract- Annexed Fort Collins Jul-09 $898,000 10.28 $87,354 Timberline Rd Interior Tract- Annexed Fort Collins Oct-09 $580,000 6.36 $91,195 Krison Rd Interior Tract- Annexed Fort Collins Dec-09 $562,500 4.91 $114,562 Pond View Ct & Hidden Pon Dr Finished Lots Fort Collins Feb-10 $900,000 5.49 $163,934 4709 Prairie Vista Dr Finished Lots Fort Collins Jun-10 $1,655,000 9.98 $165,832 5203-5240 Horizon Ridge Dr Finished Lots Windsor Apr-10 $6,071,378 36.26 $167,440 TBD Hahns Peak Dr Finished Lots Loveland Aug-10 $850,000 4.79 $177,453 5369 Carriage Hill Ct Finished Lots Timnath Apr-10 $1,672,000 9.31 $179,592 4600-4614 Horizon Rdg Finished Lots Windsor Apr-10 $2,341,353 11.25 $208,120 Interior Tracts: Min: $67,778 Max: $114,562 Avg: $87,360 Med: $87,354 Count: 5 2010 Residential Development Land Sales Analysis SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 7 The following table shows residential land sales since our 2010 update through 2012 We note the following: Our measure of value for this consulting assignment is for interior residential tracts. The 2006 table shows interior tract sale prices per acre ranging from about $94,000 to $110,000 (median price per acre about $98,0000); we concluded $100,000 per acre. The 2008 value conclusion was $100,000 per acre; no change from 2006. The 2010 table shows interior tract sale prices per acre ranging from about $68,000 to $114,000 (median price per acre about $87,000); we concluded $89,000 per acre. The 2012 table shows the interior tract sale price per acre ranging from about $51,000 to $154,000; the median price per acre is about $95,000. The median price per acre from 2010 to 2012 is up about 9%. The Larimer County Assessor was applying an 11% downward market adjustment for residential land for years 2009 to 2011. Property Address Development Stage Area Recording Date Sale Price Land Area AC Price Per AC 3268 County Road 3 Raw land- Unannexed Loveland 10/28/2011 $190,000 36.7 $5,177 8353 W US Hwy 34 Raw land- Unannexed Loveland 5/7/2012 $666,000 88.8 $7,501 Turnberry Rd @ Richard''s Lake Rd Raw land- Annexed Fort Collins 3/29/2012 $854,390 82.5 $10,354 610 W County Road 16 Raw land- Unannexed Loveland 2/3/2012 $525,000 39.3 $13,376 E CR 402 Raw land- Unannexed Johnstown 7/26/2012 $225,000 14.9 $15,121 4980 Getaway Dr Raw land- Unannexed Berthoud 8/9/2011 $670,000 35.6 $18,820 1640-1648 E Douglas Rd Raw land- Unannexed Fort Collins 7/18/2012 $780,000 35.0 $22,286 SEQ Vine/Taft Hill Rd Raw land- Unannexed Fort Collins 2/27/2012 $1,050,000 37.5 $28,037 721 N County Road 17 Raw land- Unannexed Berthoud 9/1/2011 $330,000 10.0 $33,000 W 64th St Finished lots Loveland 6/18/2012 $1,330,000 40.2 $33,076 2309-2311 Kechter Rd Raw land- Unannexed Fort Collins 10/11/2012 $1,480,000 28.8 $51,389 4155 Highplains Dr Raw land- Unannexed Berthoud 7/22/2011 $2,060,000 35.9 $57,430 2218 Sopris Cir Finished lots Loveland 9/9/2011 $425,000 6.6 $64,787 SWC Kechter & Strauss Cab Rd Finished lots Fort Collins 2/10/2012 $2,352,000 29.7 $79,192 1003-1050 Linden Gate Ct Finished lots Fort Collins 7/22/2011 $400,000 4.4 $90,090 Summerfields Pky Finished lots Timnath 5/9/2012 $682,000 7.4 $92,789 Boise Ave and 1st St Finished lots Loveland 5/11/2012 $460,000 4.5 $102,222 NWC Redwood/nokomisCt Interior tract- Annexed Fort Collins 12/22/2011 $230,000 4.5 $51,111 1750 Mountain River Rd. Interior tract- Un-annexed Berthod 9/1/2010 $427,000 6.3 $67,778 6732 S Timberline Rd Interior tract- Un-annexed Fort Collins 1/31/2012 $4,000,000 33.0 $121,396 3500 E 15th St Interior tract- Annexed Loveland 1/6/2012 $696,900 4.5 $154,867 NWC Drake/Timberline Rd Finished lots Fort Collins 4/5/2012 $3,550,000 16.1 $220,497 Campfire Dr Finished lots Fort Collins 7/30/2012 $3,093,100 11.5 $268,498 255 Urban Prairie St Finished lots Fort Collins 3/27/2012 $3,654,000 3.6 $1,020,670 Interior Tracts: Min: $51,111 Max: $154,867 Avg: $98,788 Med: $94,587 Count 4 2010-2012 Residential Land Sales SHANNON Real Estate Appraisers & ASSOCIATES & Consultants Page 8 The Larimer County Assessor is currently not applying any market adjustments, up or down, for residential land. New home starts in Larimer County are up significantly in 2012 relative to years 2010 and 2011. Based on this information and interviews with market participants, it is our opinion that residential land values are slowly appreciating. Based on the current information, it is reasonable to increase the existing $89,000 “interior tract land value per acre” to $95,000 per acre. Applying $95,000 per acre to the Poudre School District's land demand per student (see page 2) indicates the following development fees: Should you have any addition question regarding the information herein, please feel free to call. Respectfully Submitted, Shannon & Associates Donald J. Shannon, MAI, SRA Colorado-CG01313438 David Bowes, Associate Colorado-CG100013986 School Type Land Needed (in acres) Value Per Acre Fee/Dwelling Unit School Type Land Needed (in acres) Applied Value Per Fee/Dwelling Unit Elementary 0.01000 $95,000 $950 Elementary 0.00500 $95,000 $475 Junior High 0.00400 $95,000 $380 Junior High 0.00200 $95,000 $190 High 0.00400 $95,000 $380 High 0.00200 $95,000 $190 Total 0.01800 $95,000 $1,710 Total 0.00900 $95,000 $855 1 to 4 Attached Units 5 or More Attached Units ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT PERTAINING TO THE LAND DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SUCH AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on April 21, 1998, the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Poudre School District, which agreement provides for the dedication of land by developers in the City to said school district for the construction of new schools needed to offset the impacts of their development, or, in the alternative, for the payment of a fee in-lieu of such dedication (the “School Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the requirements imposed upon developers pursuant to the School Agreement have been embodied in the Chapter 7.5 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Section 7.5-48(d) of the City Code states, in essence, that the amount of the in- lieu fee to be paid by developers is to be established by the School Agreement and is to be equal to the fair market value of the property that could otherwise be required to be reserved for future dedication to the school district; and WHEREAS, Section 7.5-51(b) of the City Code calls for review by the City Council, at least every two years, of the land dedication and in-lieu fee schedule requirements attached to the School Agreement as Exhibit “A” (pertaining to school district planning standards) and Exhibit “B” (methodology for calculating the in-lieu fee); and WHEREAS, Section 1 of the School Agreement states that the school planning standards (Exhibit “A”) should be reviewed annually by the school district and the City and adjusted by mutual agreement as needed, and paragraph 5(a) of such agreement states that both the standards and methodology are to be updated annually; and WHEREAS, the School Agreement, as well as Section 7.5-51(b) of the City Code, require that a public hearing be held by the City before any changes in the amount of the in-lieu fee; and WHEREAS, the Poudre School District has adopted proposed revisions to Exhibits “A” and “B” to the agreement with the City and have requested that the City Council approve the same; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing regarding the proposed changes, the City Council believes that the proposed revisions to said Exhibits “A” and “B” 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 the amended Exhibits “A” and “B” of the Poudre School District Agreement, which Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby approved by the City Council. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, addenda to the School Agreements reflecting the amendments authorized by this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Tawyna Ernst AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the end of the lease term of five years. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1997, the 479-acre Long View Farm Open Space was purchased by Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, with an ownership split of 50%, 33%, and 17%, respectively. At the time of acquisition, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was also drafted. Per the terms of the IGA, the County manages the property and administers the agricultural lease, and receives all rental income from the property. In 2000, the 785-acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area was acquired from Harry Sauer by Loveland (75% ownership) and Fort Collins (25% ownership). Per the terms of the IGA, Loveland manages the property and the agricultural lease, and receives all rental income from the property. In 1997, Fort Collins acquired the 973-acre McKee Farm parcel of Coyote Ridge Natural Area. Fort Collins owns and manages the property entirely with no shared ownership or management with other entities. Mr. Sauer farmed all three properties prior to City and County ownership, and has continued farming under the existing leases that are set to expire in 2013. RFP Process In the fall of 2011, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was conducted by Fort Collins for dryland farming leases on all three properties. Mr. Sauer’s proposal was selected. The new agricultural lease reflects the terms and conditions outlined in the proposal. Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County worked together to draft leases for each Property that are nearly identical in terms with several minor exceptions. The lease rate and the large majority of terms for all three leases are the same. These consistent lease terms will allow consistency and ease of management across the three adjacent properties and provide Mr. Sauer with essentially one set of lease terms to adhere to. Lease Terms Mr. Sauer will lease Long View, Prairie Ridge, and McKee for a period of five (5) years beginning August 1, 2013 and expiring no later than July 31, 2018. The lease rate will be $20/acre of farmed land annually for each property. Mr. Sauer will receive 100% of the Crop Flexibility payments from the Farm Service Agency, and is responsible for any and all costs associated with crop production, insect control and noxious weed control. In addition, the lease terms have been updated to a more contemporary format with more preferable terms. June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 18 Restoration Over the past five years, Fort Collins has restored approximately 50 acres of farmland annually to native grasslands on McKee. Currently, Fort Collins plans to continue restoration efforts on McKee at the same pace; approximately 50 acres of farmable acreage will remain on the property by the end of this lease term, which will be restored the following year. The McKee lease details this restoration and Mr. Sauer will work cooperatively with Fort Collins to farm the remaining portion of the property. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The rent payments from Long View and Prairie Ridge will be retained by Larimer County and Loveland, respectively, per the respective IGAs. The McKee lease rate is roughly double the previous rate, and Mr. Sauer will be responsible for all management on the lease area of the property. The City will receive all rental income from the McKee property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no significant environmental impacts to Fort Collins. The properties’ land use will not change and existing farming practices and restoration efforts will continue unchanged. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 8, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve three leases with Harry Sauer to farm dryland winter wheat on portions of Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area and Coyote Ridge Natural Area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Farmable Acreage Map 3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, May 8, 2013 SHIELDS DRAKE TAFT HILL TAFT LEMAY PROSPECT TRILBY TIMBERLINE ZIEGLER WILSON COLLEGE HARMONY CARPENTER GARFIELD MADISON LINCOLN 29TH BOISE BOYD LAKE COUNTY ROAD 17 COUNTY ROAD 19 37TH HORSETOOTH BUCHANAN 37TH LEMAY 29TH 37TH GLADE BOYD LAKE 57TH COUNTY ROAD 38E OVERLAND ELIZABETH GARFIELD KECHTER MASON COUNTY ROAD 11C COUNTY ROAD 23 CENTENNIAL RIVERSIDE 37TH BOISE MONROE REMINGTON 29TH COUNTY ROAD 30 71ST BOARDWALK DENVER 66TH COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTY ROAD 13 COUNTY ROAD 24 COUNTY ROAD 42C LANDINGS 57TH 57TH 29TH COLLEGE SHIELDS TAFT HILL COUNTY ROAD 17 COUNTY ROAD 19 TAFT WILSON GARFIELD GARFIELD HIGHWAY 287 COLLEGE ¹ Long View Open Space, Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and Prairie Ridge Natural Area Dryland Wheat Farming Locations Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012 Project Area Larimer County Farmable Acreage Property Boundaries 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Prairie Ridge NA 560 Acres Coyote Ridge NA 475 Acres in 2012 Long View Farm OS 516 Acres 1 MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting DATE: Wednesday May 8, 2013 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00 pm For Reference: Trudy Haines, Chair 225-2760 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison 416-2096 Board Members Present: Trudy Haines, Edward Reifsnyder, Scott Quayle, Michelle Grooms, Linda Stanley, Kathryn Grimes, Board Members Excused: Kent Leier, K-Lynn Cameron, Linda Knowlton Staff Present: Karen Manci, John Stokes, Justin Scharton, Zoe Whyman and Tawnya Ernst Minutes Taken by: Michelle Vattano, Administrative Clerk II, Natural Areas Department Meeting Called to Order by Trudy Haines, Chair – 6:10 pm _____________________________________________________________________________ Introductions – Zoe Whyman, Community Relations Manager; Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner; Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner; Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist; John Stokes, NAD, Michelle Grooms, Kathryn Grimes, Scott Quayle, Trudy Haines and Colton Feller, CSU Senior of Chemical Engineer Public comments – None Agenda review – No Comments Special Announcements: Trudy announced this would be Scott Quayle’s last meeting and thanked him for his work on the LCSB. Scott is moving to Loveland and will resign from the board. Review and Approval of April 10, 2013 Minutes - Action Items I. Dry Farm Land Leases – Justin Scharton The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owner of Long View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and Loveland, respectively. All three properties are leased by Mr. Sauer for dry land wheat production Linda Knowlton made a motion to approve the April LCSB Meeting Minutes. Michelle Grooms seconded the motion. Minutes were unanimously approved. ATTACHMENT 3 2 and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities/County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals process. In 2011 a Request for Proposals was conducted by Fort Collins for dry land farming leases on all three properties. Mr. Harry Sauer’s proposal was selected. The new agricultural lease reflects the terms and conditions outlined in the proposal. Fort Collins, Loveland, and the County worked together to draft leases for each Property that are nearly identical in terms with several minor exceptions. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language. Restoration of the dry land wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the end of the lease term. A little over a year ago the City of Fort Collins and Loveland decided to look at the current lease agreement to come to terms with a suite of leases to recommend to City Council. These lease terms will allow consistency and ease of management across the three adjacent properties and provide Mr. Sauer with essentially one set of lease terms to adhere to. Kathryn – Is it specified in the lease that the crops are not GMO? Justin – We don’t have a department policy on that. Michelle - Has there ever been a department-wide policy on GMO crops? John – No, but I’m happy to consider that in the future, internally. Linda – Is there any other language in the standard leases that prohibits pesticide use? Justin - We always try to use Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest Management, when we can, certainly, and there is some language that encourages minimal pesticide usage. Linda – In the future I would like to see something more proactive. Justin – We do have a reporting requirement and we have the right to prohibit some chemicals. John – Discussing the McKee property – on the west side of that, it’s not part of the lease agreement but we’ve been restoring that all the way to Shields Street. I’d really like to take the board on a field trip out there to see the restoration... This is the only cropland that we are leasing out right now and then it will be gone, so this is a little unusual for us. Scott – At the end of the five years does it automatically renew the lease or will you go out to bid again? Justin – Yes, we will start the whole process over again. At that point we will be at about 1 or 2 50 acres strips from being completely restored on McKee. At that time we will let the County and Loveland know that we will be out of the wheat game. We will probably finish the restoration and then it’s up to those entities to take the lead. As a minority owner, it can sometimes be hard to tell the majority owner what to do. Trudy – I wouldn’t let that detour you. Maybe a plan with the county to restore the property and then an offer to do that for Loveland, if they would pay us, would be a good idea. I don’t know if they have the staff to do that. Justin – We’ve had this conversation with the County before and they are not interested. Loveland has it on the table, they have the funds, but they are not ready yet. Maybe after the five year term they will consider it but no firm plans right now. Kathryn - Maybe we could do it through Our Lands Our Future. Trudy - Maybe we could pressure the county to do something. Linda Knowlton made a motion: The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council approve three leases with Harry Sauer to farm dry land winter wheat on portions of Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area. Trudy Haines seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING DRYLAND FARM LEASES TO HARRY SAUER ON LONG VIEW FARM OPEN SPACE, PRAIRIE RIDGE NATURAL AREA, AND COYOTE RIDGE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, in 1997 the City, Larimer County (“County”) and the City of Loveland (“Loveland”) purchased a parcel of land located in Larimer County, Colorado known as Long View Farm Open Space, as described on Exhibit “A” attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Longview Farm”), with the City owning a 33% interest, the County 50%, and Loveland 17%; and WHEREAS, the City, County and Loveland purchased Longview Farm in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement dated April 14, 1997; and WHEREAS, in 2000, the City and Loveland purchased a parcel of land located in Larimer County, Colorado, known as Prairie Ridge Natural Area, as described on Exhibit “B” attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Prairie Ridge”), with the City owning a 25% interest and Loveland owning 75%; and WHEREAS, the City and Loveland purchased Prairie Ridge in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement dated March 22, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in Larimer County, Colorado known as McKee Farm, which is part of Coyote Ridge Natural Area, as described on Exhibit “C” attached and incorporated herein by reference (“McKee Farm”); and WHEREAS, Longview Farm, Prairie Ridge and McKee Farm (collectively, the “Properties”) were all farmed by Harry Sauer prior to their acquisition by the City, County and Loveland, and Mr. Sauer has continued farming the Properties under various leases and lease extensions previously approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Properties were purchased for open space and general natural areas purposes, which would be advanced by the continuation of dryland farming; and WHEREAS, in 2011 the City conducted a Request for Proposal process for new dryland farming leases on the Properties, and Mr. Sauer’s proposal was selected; and WHEREAS the City, County and Loveland have worked together to draft new leases for each of the Properties that are nearly identical in terms and conditions in order to allow consistency in management across the three Properties; and WHEREAS, the lease rate for each lease would be $20 per acre annually for a lease term of five years; and WHEREAS, the lease payments for Longview would be retained by the County, the lease payments for Prairie Ridge would be retained by Loveland, and the City would receive the lease payments for McKee Farm; and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed lease agreements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing Longview Farm, Prairie Ridge, and the McKee Farm portion of Coyote Ridge Natural Area to Harry Sauer for dryland farming under the terms listed above is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute lease agreements for the Properties on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Properties, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property to be leased. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Exhibit A EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Prairie Ridge EXHIBIT C DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Darin Atteberry AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-051 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2012 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Property that is within a fire protection district continues to be subject to the District’s property tax assessment even after annexation to the city until the property is officially excluded from the District. Exclusion must occur pursuant to state law (CRS § 32-1-502). The law allows the City to seek exclusion of annexed property from the district so that the property is not subject to property tax assessment by both the district and the City. In 2012, the City annexed eight areas within the territory of the Poudre Fire Protection District, the legal descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit A to the proposed Resolution. Consistent with the state law, this proposed Resolution authorizes: 1. the City Attorney to file a petition on behalf of the City to exclude the annexed properties from the District, and 2. the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the District for the continuation of fire protection services within the annexed properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2013-051 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS OF ANNEXED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, in 2012, the City annexed eight properties within the territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”); and WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 requires an order of exclusion from the district court to remove annexed properties from special district territories; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of C.R.S. Section 32-1-502(2)(a), an order excluding property from the boundaries of a special district requires the governing body of the annexing municipality to agree, by resolution, to provide the services previously provided by the special district to the area described in the petition for exclusion from and after the effective date of the exclusion order; and WHEREAS, from the date of such annexations, the City has provided municipal services to said properties, including fire services; and WHEREAS, the residents within the properties described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Annexed Properties") have paid ad valorem property taxes to the District for fire protection services prior to exclusion and, subsequent to exclusion, will instead pay ad valorem property taxes to the City for City services, including fire protection; and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council to reflect by this Resolution its willingness to provide fire protection services to the Annexed Properties and to exclude the Annexed Properties from the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to properly exclude the Annexed Properties from the District in accordance with law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such properties by the Poudre Fire Authority, which is an independent entity providing fire protection services to both the District and the City pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby agrees that the Annexed Properties should be excluded from the District. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in the Larimer County District Court pursuant to CRS Section 32-1-502 for an order to exclude the Annexed Properties the boundaries of which are described on Exhibit “A”. Section 3. That the City Council hereby agrees to provide fire protection service, through the Poudre Fire Authority, to the Annexed Properties. Section 4. That the City Council hereby finds that a plan for the disposition of assets or continuation of service is unnecessary as the Poudre Fire Authority has in the past served, and continues to serve, both the District and the City. Section 5. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with the District for the continuation of services for the Annexed Properties, which agreement shall be substantially in the form of Exhibit “B” attached hereto, subject to such modifications as the City Manger may, in consultation with the City Attorney, deem necessary to protect the interests of the City. Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of June A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT “A” - page 1 of 10 FORNEY ANNEXATION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center Quarter Corner of Section 10 and assuming the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 to bear North 89°14'44" West, with all other bearings herein relative thereto; Thence North 89°14'44" West, 1108.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 216.43 feet; thence, North 00°38'55" East, 435.71 feet; thence, North 89°14'49" West, 330.72 feet; thence, North 00°42'46" East, 656.12 feet; thence, South 89°24'33" East, 1320.17 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 377.97 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 285.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 472.81 feet; thence, North 87°54'20" West, 249.40 feet; thence, South 07°37'19" East, 72.44 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 86.39 feet; thence, North 00°23'46" East, 21.00 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 83.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 50.00 feet; thence, North 89°14'37" West, 85.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land contains 22.820 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT “A” - page 2 of 10 KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 1 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET; THENCE N79°57'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET; THENCE N75°35'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 166.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S00°49'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5,664 SQUARE FEET (0.130 ACRES), MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT “A” - page 3 of 10 KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 2 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N88°19'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 790.26 FEET; THENCE N86°35'52"E, A DISTANCE OF 791.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE S75°35'33"W, A DISTANCE OF 166.47 FEET; THENCE S79°57'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 21,999 SQUARE FEET (0.505 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT “A” - page 4 of 10 KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 3 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD, S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 299.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE WARRANTY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 24, 2006 AT RECEPTION NO. 20060005697 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND WESTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID TRACT THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1. S00°44'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 725.89 FEET; 2. N89°31'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 300.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8; 3. ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 559.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; 4. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S89°38'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 709.81 FEET; 5. N00°38'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,263.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: EXHIBIT “A” - page 5 of 10 KECHTER ANNEXATION 3 - continued 1. S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,004.03 FEET; 2. N00°02'14"W, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; 3. S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 67.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE THORLAND ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID THORLAND ANNEXATION NO. 2, N00°18'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N89°29'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,783.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE S86°35'52"W, A DISTANCE OF 791.12 FEET; THENCE S88°19'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 790.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 812,118 SQUARE FEET (18.644 ACRES), MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT “A” - page 6 of 10 KECHTER CROSSING ANNEXATION Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 1, Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, Block 2, Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Block 3, Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 4, Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 5, Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, Block 6, Lots 1 through 2, inclusive, Block 7, Lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Block 8, Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 9, Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, Block 10, Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 11, Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 12, Common Area A, Common Area B, Common Area C, Common Area D, Outlot A, and Outlot B, inclusive, Kechter Crossing PLD, Being a Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Feldman M.R.D. #97- EX1094, County of Larimer, State of Colorado EXHIBIT “A” - page 7 of 10 WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 1 A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 146.75 feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence East, 58.00 feet; thence North, 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 768.80 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 329.00 feet to the NE corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 164.70 feet to the Southeast corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds West, 10.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East, 82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds West, 319.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds East, 82.35 feet to the Point of Beginning. This annexation contains 0.641 acres. EXHIBIT “A” - page 8 of 10 WILD PLUM FARM ANNEXATION NO. 2 A tract of land being a portion of the tract of land described in the Warranty Deed recorded November 27, 1996 at Reception No. 96085333; being located in the S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., which considering the West line of the SW 1/4 of said Section 3 as bearing due North with all bearings herein relative thereto is described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence along the West line of said SW 1/4 South, 90.60 feet; thence East, 40.00 feet to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road and the Point of Beginning; thence East, 106.75 feet; thence North 44 degrees 01 minutes East, 15.65 feet; thence East, 58.00 feet; thence North 81.19 feet more or less to the North line of said S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 768.80 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 32 seconds East, 319.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 39 seconds West, 82.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 12 seconds West, 1263.40 feet to the East Right-of-Way line of North Taft Hill Road; thence North, 73.88 feet to the Point of Beginning. This annexation contains 3.822 acres. EXHIBIT “A” - page 9 of 10 WOOD STREET ANNEXATION A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, WHICH IS ASSUMED BEAR S 00°04’30” E. SAID WEST LINE IS MONUMENTED ON THE NORTH END BY A 2.5” ILLEGIBLE ALUMINUM CAP IN A RANGE BOX AND ON THE SOUTH END BY A 3.5” BRASS CAP MARKED “BRADFORD” IN A RANGE BOX. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWO BEARS S 89°58’24” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1323.93 FEET AND AGAIN N 00°04’30” W, A DISTANCE OF 1326.78 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 291.09 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 88°03'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 170.61 FEET; 2) THENCE S 84°28'21" E, A DISTANCE OF 208.68 FEET; 3) THENCE S 67°34'38" E, A DISTANCE OF 201.58 FEET; 4) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 43.58 FEET; 5) THENCE S 65°58'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; 6) THENCE N 65°35'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET; 7) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 30.31 FEET; 8) THENCE N 68°32'47" E, A DISTANCE OF 192.35 FEET; 9) THENCE N 84°06'06" E, A DISTANCE OF 164.90 FEET; 10) THENCE S 69°42'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 35.87 FEET; 11) THENCE S 63°52'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 165.62 FEET; 12) THENCE S 53°38'18" E, A DISTANCE OF 13.97 FEET; 13) THENCE S 23°54'48" E, A DISTANCE OF 133.15 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE WEST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF FORT COLLINS PLAT; THENCE S 00°03'45" E, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 375.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S 89°58'24" W, ON SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1276.16 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 3.20 FEET; EXHIBIT “A” - page 10 of 10 WOOD STREET ANNEXATION - continued 2) THENCE N 89°58'52" W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; 3) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 276.00 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE S 89°58'52" E, ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A DISTANCE OF 1.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 61.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 17.3443 ACRES OR 755,516 SQUARE FEET. EXHIBIT “B”, Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE (POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT/CITY OF FORT COLLINS) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this __________ day of____, 2013, by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal home-rule corporation (the "City"), and the POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special statutory district within the State of Colorado (the "District"); WHEREAS, the City has recently filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), C.R.S., a Petition with the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado for an Order excluding certain properties from the territory of the District, which properties are shown on Exhibit "A" (the “Properties”) hereto attached, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, said Petition is premised upon the prior annexation and inclusion of the Properties within the municipal boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the City and the District to set forth their understanding and agreement with regard to the continuation of fire protection services to the Properties, as well as remaining properties within the boundaries of the District and Poudre Fire Authority, as defined below; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and obligations herein contained, the parties agree: 1. From and after the effective date of any Order of Exclusion issued by the District Court in response to the City's Petition, filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), which effective date is anticipated to be January 1, 2014, the City will continue to assume full and complete responsibility for fire protection services to the Properties. Such fire protection services shall be provided by Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) pursuant to that certain intergovernmental agreement effective November 3, 1987, by and between the City and the District. 2. From and after the effective date of the Exclusion Order entered by the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District shall have no further liability or responsibility with regard to the provision of fire protection services for the Properties or any improvements thereon, other than the obligations existing under the aforementioned intergovernmental agreement creating PFA for the provision of regional fire services. 3. From and after the effective date of any Exclusion Order entered by the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District agrees that the Properties shall be free from taxation by the District, other than mill levies assessed for purposes of paying outstanding bonded indebtedness and interest thereon, owed by the District effective immediately prior to the EXHIBIT “B”, Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3 effective date of such Exclusion Order. Exclusion of the Properties from the District and entry of an Exclusion Order by the District Court shall not affect any claim the District may have or the District's ability to make such claim for taxes which were certified by the District prior to the effective date of the Exclusion Order. 4. The District will retain ownership of all equipment and facilities now owned by the District, including such facilities as may be located within the Properties, if any. 5. The District will, through its agreement with PFA, continue to provide fire protection services to those properties located within the boundaries of the District, as modified by the exclusion of territory pursuant to the anticipated Exclusion Order requested from the District Court. 6. In the event that any bonded indebtedness exists as of the effective date of the anticipated Exclusion Order, the Board of Directors of the District shall continue to assess a proportional mill levy against the Properties, together with other properties within the boundaries of the District, sufficient to repay the principal and accrued interest on any such bonded indebtedness in accordance with the terms and provisions of the instruments pursuant to which said obligations have been created and incurred. 7. Nothing within this Agreement shall modify or terminate any obligations of the City or the District with respect to existing obligations under the intergovernmental agreement forming the PFA, including any future amendments or modifications thereto as the parties may hereafter agree. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ATTEST: a municipal home-rule corporation ______________________ ________________________ City Clerk Darin Atteberry, City Manager Approved as to form: ________________________ Assistant City Attorney EXHIBIT “B”, Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3 POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special statutory district within the State of Colorado __________________________________ By: ________________ Chairman, Board of Directors Approved as to form: __________________________________ By: Robert G. Cole Attorney for Poudre Valley Fire Protection District DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Lisa Rosintoski Norm Weaver AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into Standard Power Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic System Owners for up to 20 Years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Collins Utilities’ Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers in support of Fort Collins renewable energy commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The basis of the FCSP3 is a fixed-price, 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fort Collins Utilities and photovoltaic system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through the budget process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary without attachments - May 21, 2013 2. Staff PowerPoint Presentation Slides COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 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. COPY COPY COPY 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. COPY COPY COPY 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 5/30/2013 1 1 Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program Fort Collins City Council May 21, 2013 2 Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) Pilot program criteria • Approved by Council in 2013/2014 BFO • Contribute to Renewable Energy Standard commitments with local solar • Two year application window (2013/2014) • Specific funding limit, $1M per year for 20 years ATTACHMENT 2 5/30/2013 2 3 Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) Pilot program criteria • Establish – Purchase power agreements (PPA) – Program administration • Maximize benefit and minimize risk for all ratepayers • Understand interest and demand for customer-sited solar systems • Inform future budget cycles 4 FCSP3 Purpose The purpose of the pilot Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program is to procure new locally installed solar capacity on behalf of all ratepayers to help meet the community’s renewable energy commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard. 5/30/2013 3 5 Why Local Solar? • Contributes to RES commitments (3X) – 5 megawatt program meets 25% of the 2015 RES commitment • Supports – Local investment and benefits – Climate Action Plan – Energy Policy – Grid modernization 6 Outreach • Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) • On-line survey of customers and service providers • Stakeholder meeting / open house • Utilities BizED program • One-on-one customer meetings 5/30/2013 4 7 Provisional Program Timeline 8 Fort Collins Solar Power Purchase Program Questions 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: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Courtney Levingston AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT Resolution 2013-052 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. On April 4, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Joel Rovnak seeking to remand the decision back to the Planning and Zoning Board. On May 21, 2013, City Council voted 5 - 0 (Poppaw absent, Campana withdrawn) upholding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council is required to adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence contained in the Traffic Impact Study which was substantially false and grossly misleading. At the May 21, 2013 appeal hearing, Council considered the testimony of the Appellant, Applicant and City staff. After consideration of the record and discussion, Council determined that Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Council upheld the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, approving the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2013-052 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE MARCH 21, 2013 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPROVAL OF THE CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) approved a project development plan for the project known as the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan (the “PDP”); and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2013, a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Joel Rovnak (the “Appellant”); and WHEREAS, on May 21, 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 Board; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-57(g) provides that no later than the date of its next 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 Board conducted a fair hearing in approving the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan and did not consider evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 3. That accordingly, the decision of the Board is upheld. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th day of June A.D. 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Josh Weinberg AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, Gino Campana of Johnson Farm LLC, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. The Johnson Farm is significant under Standard One (1) for its association with agricultural contexts in Fort Collins since the late nineteenth century, including the open range cattle industry, farming and ranching, and sheep raising. The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley, Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in the city as President of the Water Supply and Storage Company and Mayor from 1963 to 1967. Furthermore, the property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses, built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture. Also, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access to forage stored in the barn. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Recognition of the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owner to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property would see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on April 10, 2013, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously 8-0 to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards 1, 2, and 3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 26 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location and Vicinity Maps 2. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form and Signed Consent Form 3. LPC Staff Report 4. Resolution 6, 2013, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation of the Johnson Farm Property. 5. Photos of Property 6. PowerPoint presentation Liberty Common High School Skunk Pond Catfish Pond Custer Dr Limon Dr Illinois Dr Iowa Dr Canby Way Trestle Rd Yearling Dr Des Moines Dr Krisron Rd Kansas Dr Cutting Horse Dr Rockford Dr P a r k f r o n t D r Sandbur Dr Topeka Ln C hase Dr D e n v e r D r Straw f o r k D r Kerry Hill Dr Scarecrow Rd Cocklebur Ln Drysdale Ln Haymaker Ln Perendale Ln Gooseberry Ln Blue Y o n der Way W illow Tr e Rigden Pkwy E Drake Rd © Fort Collins 2608 East Landmark Drake Designation Road Site Map 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. 1 inch = 83 feet Johnson Barn Original Farmhouse Main Farmhouse ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 2608 East Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Legal Colorado. Township Description: 7 North, Range Lot 1, 68 Block West 7 of of Bucking the 6th Principal Horse Filing Meridian, Two, City Located of Fort in Section Collins, 20, State of Property Name (historic and/or common): Johnson Farm Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Johnson Farm LLC Email: Phone: (970)229-5900 Address: 7307 Streamside Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 CLASSIFICATION Category Building Structure Ownership Public Private Status Occupied Unoccupied Present Commercial Educational Use Existing Nat’l State Designation Register Register Site Object Religious Residential District Entertainment Government Other: Vacant FORM PREPARED BY: Name Preservation and Title: Intern Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner; John Kochanczyk, Historic Address: 580, Fort Collins, City of CO Fort 80522 Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, P.O. Box Phone: 970-219-3974 Email: jweinberg@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: April 10, 2013 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & 281 Neighborhood North College P.O. Services Box Avenue 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation The legal boundaries description of Boundaries: of of the the property property, being above. designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the or SIGNIFICANCE Properties Fort Collins that Landmark possess exterior Districts integrity if they are meet eligible one (for 1) designation or more of the as Fort following Collins standards Landmarks for designation: contribution Standard to 1: the broad The property patterns of is history; associated with events that have made a significant Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method values, or of construction, represents a or significant that represents and distinguishable the work of a entity master, whose or possesses components high may artistic lack individual distinction; prehistory Standard or history. 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in STATEMENT The Wesley Johnson OF SIGNIFICANCE Farm is significant to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard One (1) for its farm agricultural demonstrate associations multiple beginning agricultural in contexts the late nineteenth significant century. to the city, Historic including activities cattle on and the sheep Two (2) raising, for its association farming, and with ranching. several prominent The property Fort is Collins additionally citizens, significant including under Charles Standard Evans and Fort the Collins Johnson in 1902 brothers: where Elmer, they Wesley, established Edwin, multiple and Harvey. farms in The the Johnsons area. Throughout first moved the to twentieth particular, century, Harvey, the exerted Johnsons significant thrived political in farming influence and stock in the raising. city as One president Johnson of the brother Water in Supply significance and under Storage Standard Company Three and (3)mayor . Its from two farmhouses, 1963 to 1967. built The in the property 1910s also by Elmer holds Johnson, Johnson barn, are excellent built around examples 1918, represents of vernacular one agricultural of the city’s architecture. few remaining Additionally, examples of the a bank to forage barn. stored It is built in the into barn. the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access Page 3 HISTORICAL At 2608 INFORMATION East Drake Road, the historic Wesley Johnson Farm is located on the north side overlooking of Drake former nearly agricultural a half mile bottom east lands of Timberline along the Cache Road. le The Poudre farm River sits and atop straddles a ridge the Homestead boundary Act. between In November two quarter 1873, sections a homestead that were patent first was claimed issued in to the Malon 1870s B. Gannon under the for property connects directly Malon west B. Gannon of the current to the farm farm lands. site. This Interestingly, homestead records claim is indicate the only this evidence patent was that linked result of to provisions the state of within Arkansas, the Morrill rather Act. than The the Morrill U.S. Act General was passed Land Office, in 1862 which during is the likely Civil a the War establishment to distribute federal of land-lands grant to colleges. the states Most so they of the could federal be lands sold or that leased were to available raise funds at that for time However, were the located Confederate in the states west, (among including the Arkansas) states and were territories not allowed west to claim of the lands Mississippi. until the conflict western was states settled. and territories After the so Civil they War, could the also southern establish states land-were grant invited colleges. to claim The lands land where in the the State Johnson of Arkansas farm sits under (or this at least act, probably some of in the the former late 1860s acreage) or early was most 1870s. likely It was claimed then sold by the to directly Gannon, from which the explains U.S. General why he Land acquired Office. the property from the State of Arkansas rather than Ganow The for following the quarter year, section in June where 1874, the the Johnson federal government farm buildings issued sit today, a patent adjacent to Jacob to resident Gannon’s farmer property. in the Born Fort in Collins Ohio area in 1839, along Ganow with his first wife, appeared Luzetta, in and the four 1870 children. census as The a census arrived in indicates the area that around all four 1868 children or 1869 were after spending born in Missouri, some time suggesting in the Midwest. that Ganow According first the carpenter 1880 census, in his household. Ganow continued The censuses to farm in represent the area, now the primary employing source two laborers of information and a available Idaho, while on the Ganow Ganow passed family. away Grave in 1911 records in Valentine, reveal that Nebraska. his wife, Luzetta, The 1910 died census in 1904 lists in several following and 1890s, of their the prominent grown life in Ganow Colorado.cattlemen children 1 James While living little B. Arthur, in is Valentine, known Joseph of verifying the Jessup, property’s the and family’s the use Sherwood during migratory the brothers pattern 1880s owned at the turn For property of most the of adjacent century the twentieth before to the the Wesley century, Johnson Johnson the farm family farm was arrived owned site, in and the and their Larimer operated herds County.by grazed members 2 in the of area the John century Peter Sweden. Johnson Throughout family. Historically, their history, the Johnson Swedish-family American traces identity their heritage was important to nineteenth- to the family. “The A 1979 family family may history not have by Edna had much Johnson money Hoover but they emphasized always had this good point: health and they children kept and the their Faith. children’s The strength children. of their It is character interesting has to note been that passed not one on to of their this ‘House The generations Full of Swedes’ that follow ever can got be in justly bad proud with the of their law Swedish or in any roots.serious ”3 trouble. Census; 1 2 3 Archive. Colorado Edna BLM, Hoover GLO cemetery Historical Records, Johnson, records Society, Agricultural “A from House “Historic www.Scrip Full findagrave.Building of Patent Swedes,Inventory com. vol. ” 1979, 137, Records: p. p. 277;11, Jessup 1870 in Harvey U.Farm,S. Johnson Census; ” June, 1992. Papers, 1880 U.CSU S. Census; Water Resources 1910 U.S. Page 4 The and history assimilation. of the Johnson However, family this document is an interesting will not tale tell of that early story American in its entirety, settlement, but migration, will focus instead property on as the it exists family’s today, relationship a small tract with that a illustrates specific piece over of a century land, the of agricultural Wesley Johnson and human farm history. In 1902, John Peter and Augusta Johnson moved their large family by covered wagon from by drought Kansas and to Ault, the search Colorado for where higher they living found standards, early work J. P. in the Johnson sugar hoped beet fields. to establish Motivated his family children. in an Soon area after where arriving they would in Colorado, thrive as the farmers, Johnsons thus moved assuring to the the future Fort Collins prosperity area of and his worked Wesley for Johnson one year farm on Jack site Rigden’s where Drake farm. Road The Rigden crosses farm the was Cache historically le Poudre located River, near and the Rigden’s Rigden, John lands P. overlapped Johnson traded with the his historic land in Johnson Kansas for farm. a quarter After spending section along nearly Fossil a year Creek with and work moved with Rigden. the family By 1914, south of Elmer, town. in One partnership of the oldest with Charles Johnson Evans, children, acquired Elmer, the continued farm lands to adjacent Throughout to Rigden’s the farm 1910s where and the 1920s, Johnson members Farm property of the is Johnson located today. family 4 partnered with Charles son of early Evans, Fort working Collins with settler him James on numerous C. Evans farms who in arrived the Fort in the Collins city in area. 1879 Charles and prospered was the as graduate a businessman of Colorado and Agricultural politician, twice College, serving by 1910 as state Charles senator Evans for was Larimer an established County. An farmer early both article and landowner sheep in the and Fort who cattle, Collins operated but Weekly also large a scientific Courier scale agricultural described farmer and Evans ventures fancier as of “not throughout fine only stock.an the ” extensive By county.this early 5 feeder A 1909 date, of he qr of owned se qr over 20-7-one 68 and thousand other land” acres for in $the 13,280 area.in 6 the In this close same vicinity year, of Evans what is purchased now known the as “nw the and Johnson F.W. Farm.Sherwood 7 This in land 1860, was an once area the that site encompassed of the historic nearly Sherwood 1,000 acres ranch of settled prime by grazing Jesse and including farm land. Charles By Evans, 1915, the Jack Sherwood Rigden, ranch Joseph was Jessup, divided Jack between Cuthbertson, a variety and of owners, Elmer Johnson.Throughout 8 its history, the Wesley Johnson farm property was prominently associated sons, with Evans, four Glen Elmer of and the built twelve Calvin.and Johnson 9 occupied While siblings: the the property houses Elmer, was and Edwin, jointly barn Wesley, that owned still by and stand Elmer Harvey, at the Johnson as farm, well and constructing as Charles Edwin’s Elmer both farmhouses prospered around raising 1915 cattle and and the sheep barn on around the farm. 1918. Working Together, in they partnership convinced with another Evans, 1920, Johnson the brother, U.S. census Harvey, indicated to begin Elmer raising Johnson stock nearby as the on one farm’s of Evans’s owner. farms At this in time, 1917. many 10 In people grandmother, lived son, and two worked daughters, on the brother property. Ivan, sister Elmer’s Viola, parents, and wife John May all and lived Augusta, at the farm his as part of his household. Also enumerated on the site were four farm laborers, two of them Farm,Development 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hartman, House Fort Fort The Ansel Cultural Harvey Associated ” Courier Collins Collins Full May, Watrous, Johnson Harvey Resource of 1994. Weekly Weekly Plan,Swedes,Farmer, Cultural History Johnson: ” oral April Historians, Courier, Courier, April ” 11; history, of Resource 2001, Larimer A 20, 1914 Remarkable April March 1915. 8-Fort interviewed plat 9; 21, County Experts, Harvey Collins 3, map. 1909. 1909. Man, (Johnson Fort Agricultural by “Joseph Jim unpublished Collins: Hansen, oral Jessup Resources Courier interview, biography August and Printing August Survey, Wesley 27, manuscript, & 1985, Publishing 27, “Management Johnson 1985, p. 4-1981, 6, 13-Company, in Farmsteads 14. in Harvey Data Harvey Form: 1911)Johnson Johnson Preservation : Wesley 393. Papers; Papers; Johnson and Bill “A Page 5 single County production and Breeders’ two on the living farm Association.with until their the families.12 global He recession continued 11 In 1920, in to 1929. Elmer engage was in elected cattle farming secretary and of the agricultural Larimer Great Depression The 1930s proved were widespread, to be a tumultuous affecting period farmers for the across Johnson the nation, family. and The the effects Johnsons of the were Depression, not immune and the to its farm impacts. was acquired By 1929, by Elmer Charles lost Wright the farm by 1930. in the years Elmer leading later moved up to the his family Johnson to Greeley rented and before worked retiring at the from property farming until in 1955. 1934. After Of all his the brother Johnson lost the siblings, farm, Edwin Edwin alone shrapnel fought injury for to the the U.foot. S. in World In 1919, War he I for married two years, Cora Edwards, returning to and Colorado the couple after raised receiving three a children: and Ed continued Glen, Calvin, to rent and the Augusta. property after Edwin Elmer and lost his family the property. joined Elmer Calvin on was the born farm on in the 1922, site in 1925.The 13 1940 plat map indicated Horace E. Pastorius as the farm’s owner, though it is unknown Springs landowner, when he acquired also named the Horace property. E. Pastorius Pastorius. was The the elder son Pastorius of a prominent graduated Colorado from Harvard 1900. After in 1899 several with trips a degree to the in area agriculture with Charles before Wright moving in his the family 1910s, to the Colorado Pastorius Springs family in moved large activity farm to in Fort the sale area, Collins conducted but by by 1920. by 1940, the A Horace Horace 1920 advertisement Pastorius, Pastorius, senior.junior, in the 14 owned Fort Little Collins is the known property Courier of the where detailed family’s the a Johnson farming with Farm property sits today. worth The $12,1940 500. census Obviously, enumerated some farmers Pastorius, were aged able 35, to employed prosper and in increase Harvey Johnson’s their landholdings papers, Pastorius during the sold Depression. the farm to According Wesley and to Minnie a deed Johnson of trust in located January in 1941.15 For many years, Wesley rented property from Charles Evans and worked lands near the farm daughters that now leased bears and his farmed name. land The on 1940 Hospital census Road, shows enumerated that Wesley, just his one wife, page and three after Pastorius. the farm to The Johnson following family year, ownership the family after moved the to property lands acquired was lost from during Pastorius, the Depression. returning During sheep and Wesley’s cattle. tenure In January on the 1944, farm, he he was grew appointed grains and to sugar the board beets of in directors addition of to the raising Fort Collins and his Lamb family Feeders occupied Association. all his time. According It was on to this a local farm that biographer, Wesley “Farming, was killed church in a farming work, accident loved everywhere him.on ”16 Nov. for Family his 21, sunny 1944 records at disposition the offer age further of and 57. glimpses His he loved untimely of Wesley’s little death children. left character: a great The “Wesley void welcome in a was family mat known who was “Management Curiously, 11 12 13 working Fort 1920 “Elmer Collins U.on S. a B. the February Census; Courier, Data Johnson farm, Form: yet 4, One January he (1920 1883-Wesley still of Elmer’s article 29, 1972)appears 1920, Johnson ,in ” workers, Johnson the in May the Fort Farm,19, census Wilbur Collins 1920, family ” May, enumerated Hugus, December Courier genealogy 1994; was claims Cora several 3, counted file, 1920. and that August months Edwin Hugus on the later. Johnson 1979, perished 1920 in Census oral of Harvey the history, in influenza June Johnson July of virus 31, that Papers; 1975, while year. November 16, interviewed 726; 14 15 16 1940 Larimer 1940 1912, Fort U.plat Collins October S. County 9, by map; Census; 1922. Charlene Coloradoan, 1920 Heritage 9, 1914; Deed U.Tresner, S. Fort of Writers, Census; January trust Collins p. to History Wesley 4-29, 1919 Courier, 6, 1964. 16-of Harvard Johnson, 17, Larimer June in University 17, Fort County, January 1920, Collins CO, September alumni 24, Museum 1941, Volume directory; in 21, of Harvey II (1920. Discovery Dallas: Fort Johnson Collins Curtis Archive; Papers. Media Weekly Fort Corporation, Courier, Collins February Courier, 1987): Page 6 always 1960s, After leasing out at Wesley his the home.land Johnson’s to ”17 local His tragic farmers widow, death, Minnie, and other the retained family members continued ownership of the to extended of farm the the property Johnson property. until family.the Harvey late 18 Johnson primarily served raising as sheep administrator and cattle. of Wesley’s Harvey was estate a prominent and operated member the farm of the through Johnson the 1950s, family, serving by locals as as president “Mr. Water,of ” the he Water also served Supply two and terms Storage as mayor Company of Fort for Collins over thirty from years. 1963 to Known 1967. Johnson at the Water was perhaps Supply and the foremost Storage expert Company in irrigation expanded and the water city’s law access in the city. to Western His leadership Slope water. Ditch and He Laramie exerted a River significant into the influence Poudre on River. securing During water his diversion tenure as projects mayor, from he focused the Grand his attention established on the acquiring city’s water water board. rights to Throughout facilitate the this city’s period, long Harvey term growth, managed and Wesley’s he also property In and the continued late 1960s, to act Harvey on Minnie’s sold behalf the farm as financial to his trustee.nephew, 19 Calvin Johnson, who incorporated Glen and father the Edwin. lands into Spring Spring Creek Creek operated Farms, many Inc., farms a company in the he Fort formed Collins with area, his growing brother crops cattle feeding including company sugar beets, called corn, Caled alfalfa, which beans, they operated and grains. on the The nearby Johnsons Jessup also farm. owned After a Edwin his brother retired Glen from took the charge business, of the Calvin company’s managed business farming and operations finances. for Calvin Spring resided Creek, on while the property later renting With for the the a time Drake city’s before adoption farmhouses moving of to to a private new another statewide occupants.Johnson annexation 20 farmhouse policy at 2600 in 1987, South Fort Timberline, Collins began farms became to incorporate subject surrounding to annexation fields after and several farm years lands. within As the the city city’s increasingly legal limits. expanded, By 1992, the growth. Johnson Ultimately, farm lands the property encompassed was annexed over 400 to acres the city being as part quickly of the surrounded Timberline by Annex, suburban but only Johnson after brothers addressing expressed concerns alarm brought about before their city ability council to by operate Glen and a farm Calvin within Johnson. city limits, The correctly Glen Johnson foreseeing commented the eventual on the decline growth of of urban the agricultural city and its production potential effects as the on city his expanded. family’s historic by busy farm, roads “It’s and very housing difficult developments. to run an agricultural Sooner business or later the when traffic you and are other entirely constraints surrounded are going impossible to make to stop. it too We difficult just want to continue to keep operating our property as a the farm. way We it is know as long that as progress possible.is ” Addressing responded to the the reality Johnson of brothers’ suburban concerns: growth in “We Fort have Collins, a lot of chief people city asking planner us Ken if they Waido can keep lifestyle; the By unfortunately cows, 2001, if the they Johnson there can are keep Farm some hunting, property aspects things of and rural like adjacent life that. that just lands We don’t try owned to go be with by sensitive urban Spring life.to Creek, ”21 their including stalled during the Joseph the 2000s, Jessup and the Farm, properties were sold were by acquired Calvin Johnson. by Gino Campana Plans for and adaptive his brothers reuse Tony current and owner Mike seeking in 2011. Local Campana, Landmark designation. through his development The company company, is presently Bellisimo, undertaking is the an innovative adaptive reuse plan to preserve the historic integrity and character of the Wesley 16-17 18 19 20 21 19-December “John 1940 1963 Fort Harvey 17. 22; “Management Collins U.plat Wesley S. Johnson 28, map; Census; 1992. Coloradoan, Johnson “Management oral Data 1940 history, (1888-Form: plat “Don’t map; 1944)interviewed Data Wesley fence 1956 ,Form: ” Johnson me Johnson plat by in, Wesley map. David farmers Family Farm,Johnson McComb, genealogy ” say: May, City’s Farm,1994. 1973-file. plan ” May, 1973, to 1994; annex 94, Cora in property Harvey and has Edwin Johnson brothers Johnson Papers; ready oral Hartman, to history, fight,” Page 7 Johnson they will Farm. locate Bellisimo their main plans offices to restore within the the historic broader buildings Buckinghorse on the Johnson subdivision, Farm, an where area comprising practices on much these of lands the historic have ceased, Johnson the and historic Jessup Wesley farm Johnson lands. farm Although will stand agricultural as a testament in the nineteenth to the history and twentieth of his family centuries. and others who established farms in the Fort Collins area Page 8 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: ca. 1915 Architect/Builder: Elmer Johnson Building Materials: Wood, stone, concrete Architectural Style: Vernacular agricultural Description: Historic buildings on the Johnson Farm Property include two farmhouses and a large barn. granary, As outhouse, late as 2001, and loafing several sheds additional have outbuildings since fallen stood due to on disrepair. the site, but The the remaining historic buildings architecture on displaying the site high represent integrity, an and excellent the barn is example a rare and of excellent twentieth-example century of vernacular the bank barn type Constructed in Fort Collins. by Elmer Johnson around 1915, probably with the help of his brothers and neighbors, shingles, and the overhanging property’s original eaves. house Like the stands barn, one it is story built into tall the with natural a front-slope gabled of the roof, land wood so that rectangular a basement plan house level garage sits on opens a poured to grade concrete at foundation the rear elevation that encloses of the the house. basement The garage concrete and with is clad three in rectangular beveled wood hopper siding windows on the upper on the level. north Basement and south walls elevations. are exposed All windows primary elevation, on the house contains are wood-two large framed, rectangular but they are windows currently beneath boarded the over. gabled-The end west, and or a north wood-elevation framed door also on contains its south two side. large, Two rectangular small stone windows steps beneath provide the access roof to eaves. the door. The east The elevation, and large wood at the plank rear of garage the house, doors opening includes from one large the basement. rectangular The window south on elevation the main contains level, three toward rectangular its western windows, side. much like the north elevation with the addition of one window constructed Slightly by southwest Elmer Johnson of the shortly farm’s after original the house house described sits the above. property’s Resting main on farmhouse, a poured concrete wood shingles. foundation, Its walls this one-are story wood-vernacular framed, and house the has house an irregular is clad in plan horizontal with hipped wood roof siding and painted years. All white. windows Multiple on the additions house are were wood-added framed, to the and main currently core boarded of the house over. throughout A screened-the in porch containing with a a row shed of rectangular roof sits in windows front of broken the house’s by a door main frame entrance that is also on the boarded east over. elevation An additional south elevation rectangular includes window a centrally sits to located the north door, of the currently porch on boarded, the house’s flanked main by wall. two small The rectangular with a boarded windows. rectangular The south window. elevation A stone features foundation extending sits centrally additions on on the either south side, elevation, each indicating the house, that two an rectangular addition once windows stood sit here to either enclosing side of the the entrance extending On addition, the west and elevation one small of square rectangular window window. sits Additions toward the also north. extend The to the simple east and northern west elevation of the house’s contains main a plan single on the north Constructed elevation. around 1918 by Elmer Johnson, the property’s barn stands north of the two flared farmhouses. eaves, and This wood large, shingles. two-story A barn cross-sits gambrel on a section concrete extends foundation from with the roof a gambrel on the west roof, elevation, centrally-located while the gabled-north roof elevation cupola sits contains at the a gabled top of the hay structure. hood beneath The the Johnson eaves. barn A represents integrity. Bank an intact barns and were well-typically preserved built example into a hillside of a bank to take barn advantage type, holding of the a natural high level grade of Page 9 of facilitated the land, access allowing for wagons ground-or level trucks access carrying to both feed or the hay upper to the and upper lower floor, floors. which The could barn be easily barn is distributed aligned on to a animals north-south in the axis, barn and and exterior corrals walls surrounding are clad the in wood, lower-level shiplap entrance. siding. The The north square and hopper south windows elevations located include between pairs the of 8/upper 8 double-story hung and windows, the foundation and several provided boarded light to gabled the stables roof in junction. the lower Underneath story. On the the south cross-gambrel elevation, roof large on hayloft the west doors elevation, sit beneath a large the horizontal rectangular sliding windows, barn currently door, with boarded, vertical plank provide siding, light opens to the to upper the interior story while of the several barn. Three small square includes windows two vertical are plank contained horizontal in the sliding concrete barn wall doors of that the provide lower story. access The to the east barn’s elevation lower story. boarded.Five 22 rectangular windows also sit at various places on the east elevation, currently 22 Data Sources Form: consulted Wesley Johnson for architectural Farm,” May, description 1994; Andrews include: Fort & Anderson, Collins Agricultural P.C., “Johnson Resources and Jessup Survey, Farms “Management Assessment/Jessup and Wesley Feasibility Johnson Study,Farmsteads ” 2001; Bellisimo, Preservation “Johnson and Farm,Development ” 2012; Associated Plan,” April Cultural 2001. Resource Experts, “Joseph Page 10 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Andrews & Anderson, P.C., “Johnson and Jessup Farms Assessment/Feasibility Study,” 2001 Ansel Watrous, History of Larimer County, Fort Collins: Courier Publishing & Printing Company, 1911 Associated Cultural Resource Experts, “Joseph Jessup and Wesley Johnson Farmsteads Preservation and Development Plan,” April, 2001 City of Fort Collins Planning Department, Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, 1862- 1994: Historic Contexts and Survey Report, March, 1995 Colorado Historical Society, “Historic Building Inventory Records: Jessup Farm,” June, 1992 Cora and Edwin Johnson, interviewed July 31, 1975, by Charlene Tresner, oral history transcript at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery The Courier Farmer Cultural Resource Historians, Fort Collins Agricultural Resources Survey, “Management Data Form: Wesley Johnson Farm,” May, 1994 Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com Fort Collins Coloradan Fort Collins Courier Fort Collins Weekly Courier Harvard University Alumni Directory, 1919 Harvey Johnson Papers, Colorado State University Water Resources Archive Larimer County Heritage Writers, History of Larimer County, CO, Volume II, Dallas: Curtis Media Corporation, 1987 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Agricultural Scrip Patent, vol. 137 U.S. Federal Census: 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940 U.S. General Land Office plat maps: 1914, 1929, 1940, 1956, 1963 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 10, 2013 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Gino Campana, Property Owner BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Johnson Farm Property located at 2608 East Drake Road. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standards (1), (2), and (3). The Johnson Farm Property is significant to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard One (1) for its agricultural associations beginning in the late nineteenth century. Historic activities on the farm demonstrate multiple agricultural contexts significant to the city, including cattle and sheep raising, farming, and ranching. The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley, Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnsons first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnsons thrived in farming and stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in the city as president of the Water Supply and Storage Company and mayor from 1963 to 1967. The property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses, built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples of vernacular agricultural architecture. Additionally, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city’s few remaining examples of a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land’s natural grade to provide livestock easier access to forage stored in the barn. See the Landmark designation application form for detailed historic and architectural descriptions of the historic farmstead. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the Johnson Farm Property qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standards (1) (2) and (3). If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under these three standards, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Johnson Farm Property as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standards (1) (2) and (3). Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & 281 Neighborhood North College P.O. Services Box Avenue 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Johnson Farm Property Fort Collins Landmark Designation 2608 East Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO Johnson Farm Property looking northwest. From left to right are the main farmhouse, original house, and barn. Johnson Farm Property looking northwest with view of original farmhouse and barn. ATTACHMENT 5 Main Farmhouse – South and West Elevations Main Farmhouse – West Elevation Main Farmhouse – East and North Elevations Main Farmhouse – South and East Elevations Original Farmhouse – West and South Elevations Original Farmhouse – South and East Elevations Original Farmhouse – East Elevation Original Farmhouse – North and West Elevations Johnson Barn – South and East Elevations (toppled outhouse in foreground) Johnson Barn – South and West Elevations Johnson Barn – North and West Elevations 1 Request for Designation of the Johnson Farm Property as a Fort Collins Landmark Josh Historic Weinberg Preservation and Planners Karen McWilliams City Council Regular Meeting June 4, 2013 ATTACHMENT 6 2 Vicinity Map 3 Johnson Farm 4 Johnson Farm History • • • agricultural Historically Linked of Represents complexes Fort Collins to prominent remaining associated activity one history of the in and Fort in most with city influential Collins 100+ intact years farm members of 5 Johnson Farm – Current Condition Johnson Complex Farm Johnson built ca. 1900 Barn 6 Landmark Preservation Commission Findings and Resolution April 10, 2013 Meeting • • Designation property Property Architecturally owner found application Significant to Gino be Historically Campana. brought under 3 forward and of 4 by • Designation LPC Council Adopted Approval Standards (8-0) of Resolution the Johnson Recommending Farm Property as a Landmark 7 Questions? ORDINANCE NO. 083, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE JOHNSON FARM PROPERTY, 2608 EAST DRAKE ROAD, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated April 10, 2013, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the Johnson Farm Property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standards (1), (2), and (3) for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural significance to Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a Landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property, Gino Campana on behalf of Johnson Farm LLC, has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the Johnson Farm Property, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lot 1, Block 7 of Bucking Horse Filing Two, Located in Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado. be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14. Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the City Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Seth Lorson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27 SUBJECT Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish the existing King’s Auto building at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900 square-foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square-feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry Station in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District. The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; (b) the ability to provide off-site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and (d) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces. On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading, and substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Under the appeals procedure contained in the Municipal Code, the appeal is required to be considered upon the record on appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties-in- interest were raised in the notice of appeal. The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD After testimony from the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 – 0 to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan application. In support of its motion to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 9 of the staff report. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL 1. “It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to be reviewed as a type 2.” The Appellant states, “staff provided information to the board concerning why the hearing was held so soon after the required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, ‘caught in the middle’, of a change in the L.U.C. This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the development submittal.” June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 27 During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript) The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page 16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript) The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript) Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 2. At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.” The Appellant states, “Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image in the form of a tree- framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major façade was featured and left on the screen. The true representation of mass and scale of the project remains elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and avoided depiction of the reality of the project.” The neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2013. The Applicant submitted a revised version of the building elevations prior to the public hearing on April 16, 2013, as shown in the Power Point presentation to Planning and Zoning Board (Attachment 4: Materials submitted to Planning and Zoning Board at the Hearing). The revised plans show a fifth floor setback on the west side and a change in material from metal panel to brick. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the manner in which images were presented. Building elevations were displayed during staff presentation and provided in the staff report (Attachment 1 – PDP Plan Set). QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL 1. “The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and indeed were unaware and uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to review this project at all or specifically was taking place the next day.” June 4, 2013 -3- ITEM 27 The Appellant states, “Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at that work session where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe. Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter to proper expected procedure.” During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript) The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.” (Page 16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript) The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and going forward, the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript) Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL 1. “This project fails to meet compatibility standards.” LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C)(1) states: horizontal masses shall not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed elements. The Appellant states, “The proposed 5 story 56-foot high building at 240-feet in length along the major axis has a ratio of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block frontage” and the “proposed step in the building height on the North elevation did fully depict how it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack of a West elevation. There is little or no visual effect from the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor to the major East or West elevations.” The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page 5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing. Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 2. “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.” June 4, 2013 -4- ITEM 27 LUC Sec. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) states: all sides of the building shall include material and design characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited. The Appellant states, “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood. No substantial projecting elements or substantial recessed elements of consequence occur to break up the block-like composition leading to the lack of architectural quality, (please see elevations). There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading elements brick and minimal enhanced features proposed as shown on the principal elevation.” The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the design characteristics on the side facing the neighborhood. Staff has prepared information regarding the design characteristics on the side of the building facing the neighborhood and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 3. “The project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its block-type form.” LUC Sec. 3.5.1(B) states: New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The Appellant states, “The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so as it ignores how sensitive mass and form promote compatibility.” The Applicant’s narrative, attached to the staff report, discusses and illustrates the existing neighborhood character. The Planning and Zoning Board stated, ”I like what the applicant’s team has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it. This is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason Corridor come to life and be functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason, and even across the street, to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very eclectic architecture in that neighborhood…very eclectic.” (Page 21, Line 24 – 28 of Verbatim Transcript). Staff has prepared information regarding the neighborhood character and project compatibility and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 4. “This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive elements, lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building mass.” LUC Sec. 3.5.1(C) states: Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. The Appellant states: “It [the proposed building] does not relate to street and neighborhood.” The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page 5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing. Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the Board for further consideration. June 4, 2013 -5- ITEM 27 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. Materials submitted to Planning and Zoning Board at the Hearing. 5. Verbatim Transcript of Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 6. 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 - Bruce Froseth and Susan Kreul- Froseth, May 2, 2013 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing held April 18, 2013 ITEM NO ______3___________ MEETING DATE __April 18, 2013____ STAFF __LORSON _____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: MAX Flats (203 W. Mulberry St.), #PDP120034 APPLICANT/OWNER: Brinkman Development, LLC/203 W. Mulberry, LLC 3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to demolish the existing King’s Auto building and construct a 63,900 square foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line, in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and zoned Community Commercial (CC) in which multi- family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting 4 modifications of standards, they are as follows: A) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; B) ability to provide off-site bike parking; C) a reduction for parking lot setback from 5’ to 4’2”; and D) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed PDP has been reviewed by staff and is in compliance with all applicable Land Use Code (LUC) standards with the exception of the proposed modifications of standards for which staff is recommending approval based on the finding that they are nominal and inconsequential (Sec. 2.8.2.). The applicant has worked to enhance visual interest along the pedestrian frontage (Sec. 3.10.4) and provide adequate variation in massing and building materials (Sec. 3.5.3). The proposed development is in line with the principles of infill and redevelopment as outlined for this area in City Plan (LIV 5). Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Downtown (D) Commercial South Community Commercial (CC) Single- and multi-family residential and commercial East Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential and commercial West Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential The property is part of the Fort Collins Original Town Site platted in 1873. 2. Compliance with Applicable Community Commercial (CC) District Standards [Division 4.18] A. Purpose: The purpose of the Community Commercial District is as follows: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district as the project proposes to provide a mix of uses with higher-density residential in a multi-story building above ground-floor retail. B. Permitted Land Uses: [Section 4.18 (B)] The proposed use of Mixed-use dwellings is permitted in this zone district in coordination with Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain more Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 3 than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms the project is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). D. Development Standards: [Section 4.18 (E)] (1) Site Planning. (a) Building Orientation. The configuration of shops in the Community Commercial District shall orient primary ground-floor commercial building entrances to pedestrian-oriented streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary entrances from off-street parking lots; however, on-street entrances are strongly encouraged. The lot size and layout pattern for individual blocks within the Community Commercial District shall support this requirement. The commercial element of the proposed development has its primary entrance facing onto the plaza that is on the corner of Mulberry Street and Mason Street, both have detached public sidewalks. The primary entrance for the residential element faces onto the Mason Street sidewalk. (b) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1) prominent or central location within each geographically distinct Community Commercial District shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities may be placed on blocks with community facilities. A plaza is provided at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Mason Street. The plaza is bounded by masonry seat walls and has sandstone seat blocks and will provide tables and chairs. (c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Community Commercial Districts shall be considered primary stops on the regional transit network. Transit stops, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core commercial area. Commercial uses must be directly visible and accessible from the transit stop. Transfers to feeder buses shall be provided for in the design and location of these stops. (See also Section 3.6.5, Transit Facilities Standards.) The forthcoming bus rapid transit line, the Max, has the Mulberry Station stop directly abutting this site. The building design has the station between the Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 4 commercial element and the residential entrance. The station shelter will be almost directly against the face of the building and pedestrian traffic will travel in front of the station shelter. (2)(d) Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof with different co-dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All buildings shall be limited to five (5) stories. The building is proposed to be 5 stories in height. The site is in the City Floodplain (not F.E.M.A.) so the project has provided parking for the majority of the base level to lift the residential component out of the floodplain. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards – Article 3 A. Site Planning and Design Standards [Division 3.2] 3.2.1(D)(2) Street Trees: The proposed development is providing street trees at 30 to 40 foot intervals with the exception of the area with the Max station and on Mulberry Street near the corner to maintain the required sight distance. 3.2.2(K)(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements: (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 5 Four and above 2.5 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking requirements. The project proposes 64 parking spaces to serve 64 dwelling units with 100 bedrooms. The proposed development is in the TOD Overlay Zone and therefore is not required to provide the minimum amount of parking spaces as noted in the table above. If the project were outside of the TOD Overlay Zone, it would be required to provide 105 parking spaces. B. Building Standards [Division 3.5] 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility Architectural Character, Building Size, Mass and Scale, Building Materials, Building Color, and Building Height Review [Section 3.5.1 (B), (C), (E), and (F)] The area in which this project is proposed has an eclectic mix of building styles – in form, scale, character, and material – and uses. For example, the adjacent corners of the Mulberry and Mason intersection have the following buildings: gas station (Schrader, gas canopy and convenience store, NW corner), sporting goods retail (Sports Authority, former grocery store, NE corner), church (First Presbyterian, large scale with large parking lot, SE corner). There is not a common character established in the area and is recognized in City Plan as a targeted infill and redevelopment area. The proposed building is attempting to set an enhanced standard of quality by creating a gathering plaza, providing masonry materials on the base level, and articulating the massing with balconies to further engage the residents with the public realm. The building is sited directly on the east property line to frame the street and to move its building mass away from the two-story multi-family buildings to the west. Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 6 Shadowing [3.2.3 & 3.5.1(G)] The five-story building shadow analysis has shown that the majority of the shading of neighbors will be in the morning hours for the property to the west. According to the shadow analysis, the proposed building does not cast a shadow over the rooftops of the property to the west and therefore would not “preclude the functional use of solar energy technology” (assuming the solar panels were placed on the roof). 3.5.2 Mixed-Use, Institutional, and Commercial Buildings Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways, and Parking. [Section 3.5.2 (B)] The main entrances of the building face onto the public sidewalk on Mason Street, directly adjoining to the Max Station, and the retail space opens onto a public plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building is sited well within the required 15 foot build-to line leaving just enough space for bike racks and green screen landscaping elements between the building and the sidewalk. Variation in Massing. [Section 3.5.2 (C)] The proposed building provides both vertical and horizontal variation throughout the building. Additional building articulation is provided with the protruding balconies on the east side. Character and Image. [Section 3.5.2 (D)] The proposed building creates a recognizable base with masonry material – a mix between brick at entrances and ground-face CMU – windows that open to the parking at the base level are covered with wood slats and green screen landscaping. The base includes a 1,466 s.f. commercial element, a Max Station (Mulberry Station), a public plaza, and many bike parking spaces. The top element is treated with a color change in the stucco and a cornice. 4 Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone [Division 3.10] A. Parking Structure Design [Section 3.10.4(D) The only applicable section of the Development Standards for TOD Overlay Zone for properties north of Prospect Road is the section regarding parking structure design. Specifically it requires that “where parking structures face streets, retail and other uses shall be required along at least fifty (50) percent of the ground level frontage to minimize interruption in the pedestrian interest and activity.” The applicant is proposing to meet this standard by providing a commercial element, residential entrances, and bicycle parking totaling 52% of the ground level frontage. Additionally, the Max Station (Mulberry Station) will be Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 7 integrated into the ground level frontage, effectively precluding any other use in the area and enhancing pedestrian interest and activity. 5. Modification of Standards [Division 2.8] A. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring six percent landscaping of interior spaces in parking lots and no greater than a 15 space parking bay without a landscape island. The project proposes 2.7% (224 s.f.) landscaping of interior parking spaces instead of the required 6% (505 s.f.). The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The development site is particularly constrained being only 100’ wide and thus has hardly enough room for drive aisles. The project is proposing 64 parking spaces (one per unit) in the TOD Overlay Zone, which there is not a minimum parking requirement. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Additionally, the parking lot is well screened by the building and the 6’ privacy fence along the south and west property lines. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. B. Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring bike parking spaces be provided on site in the amount of one space per bedroom (60% enclosed; 40% fixed) and 4 spaces for the retail element (20% enclosed; 80 % fixed). The project proposes 65 enclosed spaces (61 required) and 31 fixed spaces (43 required) on site. The project proposes to partially compensate for the 12 spaces by providing 10 spaces in the Mason Street ROW (requiring a revocable ROW permit). Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 8 The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. If the spaces proposed in the ROW were counted toward the total required spaces, then the project would be two fixed spaces short but are providing four additional enclosed spaces, therefore the project would have an overall net of +2 spaces beyond the requirement: 65 enclosed + 31 fixed + 10 ROW = 106 spaces (104 required). Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. C. Parking Lot Setback [3.2.2(J)] The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring a 5 foot setback for vehicular use areas along lot lines. The project proposes an average of 4.15 foot setback along the west property line. The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and that the project will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project site is particularly constrained by its narrow width of 100 feet and is requesting 3 modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. The project is providing a 6 foot high privacy fence along the west property line and also providing 3 trees and many shrubs to soften the transition between the parking lot and the property to the west. Additional trees were not provided due to a sizeable utility easement. The project is consistent with community needs described in City Plan such as Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas (EH 4.1), Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment (EH 4.2) and Maximize Land for Residential Development (LIV 7.4). Without the granting of this modification the project would be practically infeasible because there would not be enough space for the parking lot drive aisles. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 9 D. Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)] The applicant is requesting a modification of standard to the requirement that compact parking stalls make up a maximum of 40% of the parking spaces provided. The project proposes 58% compact parking stalls. The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The applicant is attempting to provide one parking space per dwelling unit with the existing site constraints. By reducing the size of an additional 12 parking spaces to the permitted compact vehicle size, the project is able to achieve this objective. This proposed reduction in parking stall size will not negatively affect the public because they are private parking spaces to be managed by the developer. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard. 6. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has granted the Max Flats project a grant to assist in public improvements in the ROW. The DDA has reviewed the project in entirety and has decided that the project meets their standard for desirable development in the Downtown area. 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in interior parking lot landscaping (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)&(5)(e) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because the parking is already screened from public view by the building and the fence. B. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the required number of on- site fixed bicycle parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(C)(4) is not detrimental to the public Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 10 good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. This is because the proposal is still providing adequate bicycle parking when including the public ROW. C. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the parking lot setback (Sec. 3.2.2(J) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and that the project will result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. This is because the lot is of a peculiar shape, exceptionally narrow, and requires the reduction to allow for drive aisles. The project is 10 inches short of the standard and is providing screening in the form of a 6’ fence and landscaping where feasible. Also, it allows for additional parking to be provided on a targeted infill and redevelopment site as identified in City Plan. D. The request for a modification of standard to permit an increased percentage of compact parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(L)(2) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because the modification will not burden the public. This is because the parking is internal to the site, will be controlled by the owners and will not be open to the public. E. The PDP contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Community Commercial District in accordance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code. F. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of standards. G. The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034 Planning Max Flats, & PDP Zoning #130034 Hearing 04-18-2013 Page 11 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – PDP Plan Set 2 – Modification Requests 3 – Applicant Narrative 4 – Public Comments April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Landscaping and Tree Protection, Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5) states the following: “(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2(M)(1) Access, Circulation and Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas.” Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the project does not meet the 6% parking lot interior landscaping requirement. MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 224 sq. ft. of landscape instead of 505 sq. ft. feet. Parking lot area: 8,415 sq. ft. 6% required landscape: 505 sq. ft. Provided landscape: 224 sq. ft. Amount deficient: 281 sq. ft. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) states the following: “(e) Parking bays shall extend no more than fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula.”. Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. The project has 16 parking spaces located along the west edge of the parking lot. As stated above, the Code requires a landscape island every 15 spaces. The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 parking stalls per bedroom and we feel it is important to keep the parking ratios as is. Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 16 parking spaces in a row without a landscape island. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to provide trees that maximize areas of shade. We believe this requirement is intended for large parking areas and this parking lot is fairly small. The landscape plan shows oak trees spaced every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that these trees will provide sufficient shade for the parking area. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards 4-2-13 7 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) Bicycle Facilities states the following: “(b) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed.” Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Multi-Family Residential 1 per bedroom 60%/40% Requested Modification: MAX Flats PDP will have 100 bedrooms, therefore 100 bike parking spaces are required. Of the 100, 60 spaces are required to be enclosed and 40 spaces are to be in fixed racks. The project provides 64 enclosed spaces located within the units. 21 spaces are located in fixed racks along Mason Street and 7 spaces on the west side of the building. In addition, there will be 10 spaces in racks located within the right-of-way on Mason Street, totaling 38 fixed spaces. 4 bike parking spaces for the retail area are located on the west side of the building. 1 is enclosed in a bike locker and 3 are in fixed racks. Retail Bike Parking Required: 4 spaces Retail Bike Parking Provided: 1 enclosed (80%) 3 fixed racks (20%) Total 4 Residential Bike Parking Required: 100 bedrooms = 100 spaces (60% enclosed/40% fixed) Residential Bike Parking Provided: 64 enclosed (64%) 38 fixed racks (38%) Total 102 Since 10 of the fixed rack spaces are in the Mason Street right-of-way, we are requesting a Modification to allow the project to be able to count the spaces towards the total requirement. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking and bicycling as alternative means of transportation • The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on the east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right- of-way that will be used adjacent to he transit stop. Further, the Mason Street right-of-way is in its ultimate location, thus the risk of removing the bike racks in the future is minimal. MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to section 3.2.2(J) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the following table: Minimum average of entire landscaped setback area (feet) Minimum width of setback at any point (feet) Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a nonarterial street 10 5 Along a lot line 5 5 MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the landscape area along the west property line ranges from 3.6’ to 4.7’ wide, with an everage of 4.15 feet. Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have an average setback of 4.15 feet instead of 5 feet along the west property line. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for visual screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • The width of the landscape area in the proposed alternative plan is short, on average, by 8/10ths of a foot. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. April 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(L)(2) of the Land Use Code. Background The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with 64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor. Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off- street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure. The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building. This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Section 3.2.2(L)(2) Code Language: Section 3.2.2(L)(2) Parking Stall Dimensions statess the following: “(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Off-street parking areas for automobiles shall meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles: (2) Compact Vehicle Spaces in Long-term Parking Lots. Those areas of a parking lot that are approved as long-term parking have the option to include compact parking stalls. Such approved long-term parking areas may have up to forty (40) percent compact car stalls using the compact vehicle dimensions set forth in Table B.” MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 2 Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. The following parking spaces are provided: Standard Parking Stalls = 27 (42.2%) Compact Parking Stalls = 37 (57.8%) Total 64 (100.0%) The Code requires 64 spaces x 40% = 25 compact spaces maximum Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to exceed the maximum number of compact spaces by 12 spaces. Justification We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: • The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, which provides consistency with the Land Use Code in terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials. • While not required in the TOD, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 spaces per bedroom. • We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services.” MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 3 The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the February 2011 City Plan: Economic Health Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable Environmental Health Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. Community and Neighborhood Livibility Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on theTargeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the “community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 4 “community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles and policies on infill and redevelopment.) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and civic development projects. Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by: • Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks. • Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer. MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 5 Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and promote pedestrian activity: • Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. • Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. • Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards 4-2-13 6 high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking major activity centers and districts in the city. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. Transportation Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target markets within the City. BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM ® ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN 12.12.2012 Page 1 of 2 g:\development\projects\203 w. mulberry\3. entitlement\pdp\planning objectives docx Statement of Planning Objectives MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry PDP Submittal (i) The proposed project supports Plan Fort Collins’ principles and policies in the following ways: - Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of the community. - Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy- efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing for students on bus routes close to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus, Old Town, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use. - Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and redevelopment. - High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory way. - Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC. (ii) Usable open space consists primarily of the community plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. Use of seating provided for customers, transit users, and residents will be encouraged by its proximity to the proposed Retail/Flex space and Max BRT stop. There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of the site. There are two existing Honeylocust trees on the site that will have to be removed and mitigated. The team has met with the City Forester to assess the existing trees and landscaping. All of the existing street trees will remain undisturbed. New landscaping will consist of low-water shrubs, ornamental grasses and groundcover as required by code. (iii) The proposed project site is currently owned by Jerry King and is in the process of transferring ownership to 203W. Mulberry, LLC. The site is set to close on December 18, 2012. Once ownership has transferred to 203 W. Mulberry, LLC, they will assume maintenance of the site. (iv) A retail space of about 1,500 s.f. is proposed at first floor along Mulberry. This is envisioned to be a coffee shop or similar business, which would have 1-3 employees at any given time and could employ between 3 and 5 FTEs (full- time equivalents). (v) The L-shaped building is oriented to provide a strong urban edge along Mason and Mulberry Streets and to provide the maximum buffer to the existing apartments to the west. The ground level facade will intertwine residential entries, bicycle parking, outdoor plazas and commercial uses to create a dynamic urban street. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street-level experience. The building facades are scaled to be compatible with the surrounding context. This also allows the parking to be tucked under the building and mostly hidden from the street. Pedestrians will circulate primarily along the perimeter street edges. Bicycle parking is conveniently located adjacent to the building along both streets helping create street activity. Secure bicycle parking is provided within the individual residential units. An outdoor plaza at the prominent northeast corner takes advantage of proximity to the future Max BRT station and the retail/flex spacing and provides numerous seating options (table and chairs, seatwall, and seating boulders) for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors. BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM ® ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN 12.12.2012 Page 2 of 2 (vi) Please see the attached Variance Request letter for information relating to variances that are being requested on this project. (vii) There are no natural features or wildlife conflicts. Impacts and conflicts with adjacent properties are mitigating by providing a fence along the south and west boundaries. The building has been configured and sited to provide the maximum separation to the apartments to the west. (viii) A Neighborhood Meeting has not occurred for this project. (ix) The current project name is MAX Flats. It went by “203 W. Mulberry” at the time of Preliminary Design Review. Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan City Plan / Plan Fort Collins o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor. o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas. o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and infill in targeted redevelopment areas. “Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity.” o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments. o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit stops. o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. 35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however limit maximum building height to five to six stories.” o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns “Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.” Land Use Code o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi- story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority while also accommodating vehicular movement. o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. Refill Fort Collins o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights Incentive. o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north(Schrader’s) and northeast(Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height. The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing. Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor. The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are proposing. The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at station areas. Map Showing Zone District Overlay: Map Showing TOD Overlay: March 23, 2013 Mr. Seth Lorson City Planner City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado VIA-Email Dr. Mr. Lorson: I’m writing to express my full support of the new mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and ground level retail at 203 West Mulberry Street. The corner is well- suited for the proposed project, and it’s my hope the condemned house immediately to the south of King’s Auto is included in this project. Shame on City officials for allowing that eyesore to exist. Respectfully, Mike Flesher 210 W. Magnolia Street, Unit 250 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.222.3320 March 23, 2013 Dear Kelly, housing We are not project sure being anyone proposed really knows in your about district a large on the scale, old five-Kings story Auto high-site density, on the corner student-of oriented Mason and Mulberry Streets. We development learned about proposal the project sign. We because reviewed we the own preliminary the property drawings directly for to the the project west and with saw city the planner posted Seth Lorson designed initially and conceived. around the To first give part some of January. background, The scale we met of the with project the developer is massive and and owner we believe upon their poorly invitation proposal not on January meeting 22nd. the minimum At that meeting planning we standards expressed set concern forth by about the City the of various Fort Collins. aspects of the We sometime kept in in contact mid-March. with Seth Thursday and he of said this that week the we next just phase received of the a letter project stating would that be the ready public to review administrative required), to affected hearing property is scheduled owners. for April We met 3, 2013, with exactly Seth yesterday, two weeks Friday, and one hoping day, to (minimum see some notice new improved called and plans asked but about it actually parking looked issues worse, other than not better. our continued Seth mentioned interest. that only one woman had We before do not the believe Planning that and this Zoning is a type Board. I review, We suspect not required that people to have are a just neighborhood now learning meeting of the project or to go at form, all. This high is an density extremely student-important oriented precedent complex setting proposed project. along the It is new the first Mason large Street scale, Corridor 5-full story, north block- of Laurel walls or Street. screens The fronting major the portion primary of the 240-site plus at grade long axis level fronting is dedicated Mason to Street. a parking The lot proposed with large 1,200 flat square it to be foot called coffee “Mixed shop, Use”. representing The total units a little number over 2% 64 of with the 100 total bedrooms. 63,900 finished square footage allows The approval neighbors by the and hearing the community officer. The will project have little is one time of extreme to review precedent this project setting until nature it is presented within the for community, take the name the of new the Mason most significant Street Corridor major and urban District project 5. the So much City of so, Fort as the Collins developer has likely has taken chosen on, to “MAX Flats”. number We believe of units that this and project bedrooms. is required The full go twelve to the step Planning review and process Zoning is Board clearly for required review based based upon upon the the published Fort Collins. regulations set forth in the Land Use Code under Community Commercial Zoning in the City of Thank this is something you, Kelly, for we your doubt interest. you envisioned. We know We you feel were it would very involved be detrimental in the Mason to allow Street such Corridor a project and with unquestionable impact to simply slip through with little review or concern. Sincerely, Bruce Froseth Susan Kreul-Froseth cell (970-689-9322) 1 Seth Lorson From: Mark Littau <mlittau1@cox.net> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:43 PM To: Seth Lorson Subject: Max Flats, 203 W. Mulberry St. Dear I property, I am have a Mr. the part Lorson: but following year I would resident comments like to of comment Park or Lane questions: if Towers. possible I by am email. unable to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the subject me 1. that What only is the the project benefit benefits to the neighborhood in allowing a higher to allow project less landscaping density. Is the and project offsite bicycle name a parking? co-incidence? It seems to student 2. It ghetto seems unless to me that extraordinary such a dense sound project isolation immediately measures adjacent are taken to the with railroad the project tracks construction is an invitation to insure for a a livable environment for it's residents. thanks for the opportunity to voice my comments, Mark 421 Ft. Collins, S. Littau Howes Co. #1008 1 Seth Lorson From: Don Genson <dgenson@firstpresfc.org> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:12 AM To: Seth Lorson Subject: Comments on Mixed Use Building Project Seth: Thank you for the opportunity for providing these comments via email. A representative of the church was planning to attend the April 3rd meeting but found the building locked. I trust these comments are still able to be added to the record. First, let me say thank you for the opportunity as an affected party to make comments about the new mixed‐use building project at 203 West Mulberry. As business administrator at First Presbyterian Church at 531 S. College Avenue I am aware of the additional burden this new construction is likely to place on our operation and how the request for modification of standards will increase that burden. Part of our physical plant is a parking lot for more than 200 vehicles running along Mason Street between Myrtle and Mulberry. Residents in existing apartment buildings, including 3 in the 100 block of the south side of West Mulberry, and buildings at 109 and 113 West Myrtle, already illegally use our parking lot on a regular basis because of too few parking spots provided for their use. It is obvious if the new building were built to current standards adding only 64 parking spots for 64 dwelling units parking is already inadequate and will increase the illegal parking at our facility. However, then to allow 4 modifications to reduce the effectiveness of existing parking spot standards would be unconscionable. Please take these comments as from a neighbor who would like to be supportive but not trampled upon. Sincerely, Donald W. Genson Business Administrator FPC, Fort Collins NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Max Flats at 203 W. Mulberry Street DATE: April 10, 2013 APPLICANT: Dave Derbes, Brinkman Partners PROJECT PLANNER: Seth Lorson NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Sarah Burnett City Type Process 1 projects Overview: do not require a neighborhood meeting and a public administrative hearing is heard before hearing a before hearing the officer. Planning Type & Zoning 2 projects Board. require This neighborhood project is considered meetings mixed-and are use, subject typically to a a Type public 1 hearing, more than however, 50 units there or 75 is bedrooms also a new to provision be classified in the as Land a Type Use 2. Code requiring multifamily projects with The new Land Use Code language now requires a Type 2 review for this project. Neighborhood meetings for this project for Type is being 2 projects held tonight, are usually but performed it is also scheduled before project for the submittal. next Planning The neighborhood & Zoning Board meeting Hearing to have comments next week. included All are encouraged as part of the to official go to the record. Planning & Zoning Board or email comments to Seth Q: When are these comments sent to the P&Z Board? A: to Comments get them in can immediately be received before up to the the meeting. meeting. If you want a thorough reading of your comments, try This project began in September with a Preliminary Design Review. The the MAX project Bus is Rapid located Transit in the Line Community at a prominent Commercial intersection. Zone District, near the Downtown District, along Applicant This neighborhood Presentation: meeting is out of sequence but we are still looking for your input and willing to work have together been to involved address with concerns. the site This since project 2011. has We been do a in lot the of works multifamily since September and student-of housing last year, projects and we and feel the location between campus and downtown, along MAX will make it a successful project. The redevelopment project is on and a prominent improvements. corner, Being a block located away along from Mason, College it Avenue. is very near It is an campus area seeing and downtown; bridging along the the transit connection system. between campus and downtown. The site allows us to be on the urban corridor, The navigating building the comes city. At up the to the corner property (Mason line & to Mulberry) address the there pedestrian will be a MAX needs Transit in the Stop. urban There core and will those be sidewalk stop for community improvements space, along serving Mason, the and bus the stop building but also is those creating traversing a square the a few site. steps We are from planning the transit to have the middle a retail of base the block at the for corner. sun access The main in the entry morning to the and building near the itself bus is located stop. along Mason Street; in There are bookends to each side of the building and the shape and mass of the building has been articulated potential for and future modified retail as development. comments were Behind received the front from building the city. wall The there base is of parking, the building although has it is not required porous, but because also allows of the for TOD the overlay, potential but of we more feel retail it is needed. space in The the wall future. hides The the wall parking, allows but for vines it is to grow and to become a green wall. The building has a very distinct base. The layered building vertically, has a seen defined through base, the midsection different and cuts an through articulated the building. top. It is articulated There are a horizontally series of balconies and that project in and out with different finishes -- the facade of the building coming out and then back in. The parking. building On the at the north ends side is different, it is creating such an that iconic on element the south and side defining the building the plaza is hovering space. over the There are several materials from masonry, to stucco, to solid panels creating different looks. We discussed with the neighbors the relationship to the new building, from a 5 story building to a 2 story from the building. west, The there retail is a base layer is of projected parking and out the away building from the sits building. away from When the existing you look buildings at the building in the neighborhood. building affecting We neighbors. have removed The facade balconies defines on the the westside building to as minimize having no activity back. on this side of the The building provides enclosed bicycle parking, some incorporated at the ins-and-outs of the building; away the little from alcoves. the property Similar line, to street based furniture. on the fact We there have is asked no parking the City on to Mason. see if we can move some parking Along the north side of the building, the building is set back slightly to deal with setbacks and the potential allows a lot increase of green in space width between to Mulberry the Street building as and we dedicated the street. right-Between of-way the to parking the city. and This the currently building above there is a concrete fire separation, projecting outside the building to allow for the layering. We comments received from some the comments city. We also about received the mass some and neighbor materials comments of the building from a and previous reacted meeting. to the Realizing there are some decisions regarding the feasibility of the project. Q: A: (There City) 4 were Modifications 4 requests of for Standards variances? requested. A: inconsequential. The modifications requested are site related. Each on its own falls into the category of nominal and 1. total One with for the bike retail parking space)(requirement . We're providing of 1 per excess bedroom, but request thus a requirement a modification of to 100 allow or 104 spaces bike in stalls the right of way to count towards the aggregate number. there 2. There is no is a parking request requirement to exceed the in the standard TOD Overlay ratio of Zone. normal There parking are stalls a higher to compact proportion parking of compact stalls; spaces than currently allowed in the plan. 3. On the west property line there is a 5' landscape buffer requirement, we have a buffer a little over 4'. 4. area The / landscape last relates island to a landscaping requirement. requirement We have 16 of continuous minimum square stalls versus footage the landscaped requirement in a of parking 15. Thought was to keep as much parking on site as possible. Looking residential at the is above, site constraints; the floodplain the doesn't site falls allow in the residential City floodplain. in the The floodplain. site evolution and why the The transit stop and parking going away along Mason Street factored into the need to maximize parking expansion on site. There of Mulberry. is right-of-The way- width on Mulberry of the site being is approximately dedicated to 100' the City and (it approx. is difficult 7.5') to for accommodate future drive isles. Q: foot My higher property - is anything is adjacent going to the to be back done end about of your drainage? parking area. The King's Auto lot is approximately a A: properties. All of the drainage will be directed to the northeast; there will be no runoff to the adjacent Q: Will that difference in grade still be there? Will the water be moving away from my property? A: A: Yes The (general water moving flow right away)now . is coming towards the northeast. The roof all drains near the backside of A: the There building is very and limited runs to parking a main area inlet exposed and then to is runoff hard piped. from above due to the roof overhang. A: (City) By City standards they are not allowed to drain on to another site. Q: grade I was to wondering drain towards if the Mason. grade would be equalized. When they paved over the area they raised the A: Will follow-up with you after meeting. Q: fence I have - how a 6' does privacy that fence relate and to the a garage existing along fence? the alley. I noticed in your proposals you are putting in a fence A: We would would not try and be ideal. get together Work with with you the guys neighbors for the to best see solution, what makes whether the most it is replacing sense. A it back-or sections. to-back Q: What are the materials on the exterior? brought A: The base up to of the the top building of the is building masonry, on with the a book-ground ends. floor Other face. portions Some of of the the same building base are materials stucco. are Q: A: Both Block or brick on the base? A: Creating a base to the building and on top there is brick as the two main elements on the ground floor. panels Also defining the infill the of corner the green of Mason wall. & On Mulberry. top of the The building balconies is stucco have metal in 3 different railings. colors There and are metal awning projections station. within the property line, defining the articulation of the base. It also articulates the MAX A: The plaza uses the same materials. Q: should I have be some some concerns stepping over down the on massing; the ends, it like feels the somewhat Palace Lofts forced in LoDo in the -- neighborhood. they did a good I job thinkthere stepping the and heights, I think that being would sensitive go a long to the ways area. towards It seems bringing you could the project do some into stepping scale with on the the top neighborhood. of the building, The grey area seems to intensify the scale of the building rather than mitigating it. It seems a less in intensive the area, treatment across the could street help. and They the neighborhood (stairwells) are has a dominating an eclectic, architectural high-quality feature. feeling about I own it property that needs a smaller to be scale respected. neighborhood. Be careful with the metallic elements, they can become intense and offensive to A: We have heard the massing comment a few times and something we are trying to work through and see have what really opportunities focused on the we base do have. of the The building. stair elements Regarding are the a functional metal comments, element there of the seems building. to be We a love concerns it or hate when it you element. get above There 30' is when masonry it integrates on there with that a can wood feel structure. pretty heavy and some structural C: When you look at the project, you look at the stairways. You don't want it to be known as the building with the stairways. Q: neighborhood. We met with What the developer are the relating and you factors, Seth, and visually? our concerns. We talked How about this stepping massive down, building or adding relates more to the masonry. stone. Here If you we look see materials along the that Mason seem Street to be corridor, of a lesser the quality. concept At has what been point the do use we of attempt masonry to and step down elevation; the areas it's a mirror we discussed? image, it's Is that monotonous. on or off the Something table? We to give talked it a about relationship the repetition to the neighborhood of the west - use this projects is a major that concern. Oz has I've advertised, known about and residential/Oz for years multifamily - they do fabulous that are fabulous work. I was work. looking Then at I looked mixed- at the to those affordable affordable housing housing images, images and that's rather the than relationship what Brinkman I saw has here. been The doing quality near of here. the building We'd like relates to see something that relates to the Mason Street Corridor and neighborhood better. Q: A: The What items has changed we talked since about when were we not started just brushed meeting aside. and having Stepping discussions? the building down has financial implications things talking to about the project materials. and There something was some we're discussion still discussing that Mason if we can was do. an There eclectic are mix; a number a lot of of variety establishing along a there high quality as anywhere product. can This be found isn't typical in the multifamiy city. They have with gone lap siding. to lengths We have to incorporate spent 6-8 and months to come up with a great project that does incorporate some of these things. directly Looking to beyond the north this block and the into potential the CC district, for redevelopment Downtown district, to the north the Mason is pretty Corridor: strong and The will D District likely is larger develop than and this have and the integrated potential through to go 7-9 this stories. area of In town. the immediately All are valid area concerns there are and numerous something structures we are still looking at and looking for the balance. Q: the What police? types of mitigation do you have regarding noise, security, partying? Who is in charge besides A: house. We have We have internally strict within policies Brinkman when it comes Partners to our these own properties property with management how we handle division; towing, we do etc. that We in- be have on found corridor the access more stringent and have you limited are access handling into these the building. policies, the It is fewer an open issues parking there area; will be. site Units lighting, will etc. are dictated by code. Problems are typically addressed through management policies. Q: A: The If there property is a big management party in the company parking lot (us)who . do we call? A: The alley is going to be closed off and fenced and may help the area. C: really If I look doesn't at that look project, like it has it's any something relationship I envision to any as of a the medical newer office buildings in the and urban fabric markets created of Denver. for Mason It Street this through in Downtown. your material This completely selection. differentiates from it. I think you have a responsibility to look at Q: What is the overall height? Is it constant? A: building, 56' to the will top not of be the seen parapets at the street and it level. is fairly constant. There are condensing units on the top of the Q: What are the sizes of the units? bedrooms A: There is are a mix around of 1, 2, 900 and square 3 bedroom feet and units. 3 bedrooms On average, around about 1,150 600 square square feet. feet for The 1 mix bedrooms, is 2 predominately 1 and 2 bedrooms. There are four 3 bedroom units. Q: The I'm physical not sure station where built the there station now is and is in how the middle traffic flows of the along sidewalk? with the station and the sidewalk areas? Q: A: The Will closest pedestrians point go is between behind the the station, station or roof up canopy around gets the front within of 2' the of station? the building. A: They can do both. The majority of the traffic will flow through the front of the station. Q: A: It Your is approximately insets in your 4 building to 5 feet. on the first floor for bicycle parking, what is the depth? Q: A: The How bikes are the park bikes with parking? the wheel projecting beyond the face of the building. There is an 8' walk along the building, C: I guess but I just necks don't down see a to space 6' near where the green the bicycle walls. isn't The hanging bikes would out in be the tucked sidewalk in behind area. that 6' zone. A: Q: Scaling Is that something off the drawing, you would it seems like the to see recess go away? area is (bicycles) closer to 6' A: bicycle I just tires see it and as tight the station and not and very this-flowing and-that. for pedestrians I know how to students walk across park bikes the face in bike of the racks. building It seems with a little A: While cluttered. I don't necessarily disagree. Part of that was the visual interest. I know saying looking at bike racks location isn't of visually bike racks interesting, was looking but to it's give part it of that that dynamic urban feel, interaction similar to and Old not Town. just a The plane-spacing jane walkway and along the front of the building. Q: A: It Do is you designed have someone to be limited interested service, in like the a retail? coffee shop is something we're intending. Not a full service right-kitchen. of-way. Something Hope it that becomes will spill a destination out and utilize spot the and plaza. utilizing The the transit racks stations and plaza. also have bike racks in the Q: I was looking at staff comments from the first of March. How were comments addressed about more design prominent regarding (the City concrete? comments)Was . Some this addressed elements such at some as stairwells point? Also, can the provide base a element strong vertical should be element A: The design but should is evolving be used as you sparingly. go through the process. As far as the starkness of the concrete sidewalk The to building nature (is concrete to have to a build-concrete) to (to -- the we property had numerous line) and discussions no opportunity with Staff for about providing the landscaping build-to scenario. between added elements the building such as and benches the sidewalk. and bike This parking. is consistent throughout downtown. We have green walls, C: A: Can Benches you point have been out where added you (3 along are talking Mason) about to break that. up the transition from the building to the sidewalk. block. Bringing Additionally, out some a base of the element detail to running the plans. along the building introduced consisting of ground face from A: The the elevations ground up. have We changed have the over brick time. all the What way you to are floor. seeing Using is wainscoting the definition that of almost materials looks as you like go limestone the technology base, of seen the around rendering. town. I believe Articulating the base more is elegant how the that materials it is articulating are used, with this is many partly materials due to and landscaping. many ins There and outs, are also it is not trees a you're solid wall. not As seeing you turn on the the rendering. corner onto Mulberry there is a lot more A: The comments about stepping the building -- we are showing today what was presented to staff. meeting? Q: Do you anticipate these comments might be considered/addressed before the Planning & Zoning A: A: It It would is an economic be a goal decision, to address and the one comments the ownership before group the planning has to address. meeting. C: success It would more be probable. respectful if you can address some of these stepping issues. I think it would make your C: project, I hear but that I haven't you're concerned seen any changes about it yet and based want on comments, conversations and like and the that neighbors leads me to to feel wonder this is where a good we are. Q: A: Don't How many know. units would you lose if you stepped down 1 level on the ends? A: At least 4 units total. A: side We of have the building. discussed There dropping is a different the north element end as on you the go south along side Mulberry, of the but building, not anything more flowing. on the south A: twice, In regards and talking to Mulberry about stepping it sits way the back building and when back. you On the look south at the end building of the from building the best west to it steps stay at back its current A: This is level something over the we're parking. looking at. Going from 2 stories with pitched roof to 5 adjacent, I don't necessarily successfully. see We're that trying as incompatible. to see what There we can are do examples to accommodate from around it, but town no decision where that has has been been made. done C: A: I In think terms it would of shading help of with neighboring the shading property also. -- December 21st is the worst condition. Within an hour A: the It shadow also shows changes the shading so much produced from being by the on the adjacent building properties to being as pretty well. much gone. Q: Has there been any commitment made to the fence system along the alleyway and the south side of the a masonry parking fence lot? I it think could if it's change just asphalt how it relates to cedar to fence the neighborhood -- if you really and commit give it to a do sense something of place. there like Architecturally for layering and on stepping. the south end, since it's away from the building it will give you another opportunity A: Q: (Is City) there The a height fence is stipulation? committed but we haven't seen it yet A: A: (Envisioned City) 6' as a wood privacy fence. There may be other alternatives. Masonry fencing with foundations A: May be something and cost can like become masonry significant. columns or There caps. We may can be all a balance get together rather and than brainstorm a wood fence. this. C: I have two dogs that will be going nuts as people are walking to the parking spaces, a masonry fence A: would What help do as the its dogs more do substantial now? than a wood privacy fence A: you It's have an empty the parking lot currently, people will they be bark walking. at some I'm of not the as construction concerned about at the the railroad dogs barking, tracks. I but know the where kids getting upset at the dogs barking and throwing something at them. Q: door? Where I also is have the garbage an overhanging located? oak You're tree putting -- what 3 will dumpsters happen 10' to that? out my I also back have window overhanging and kitchen lilac bushes? A: I wouldn't see an impact with those two necessarily. They will hand deliver the dumpsters out to the truck Q: How so often they don't will they need dump? the overhead clearance A: more Typically frequent do it basis in a so way you that utilize is less more impactful, frequently for both and not site utilizing residents as and much neighborhood. space. Some Set sites up they on a are dumped several times a week. Q: A: They They can won't drive be able in, but to can't drive pick in with it up the from trucks? the enclosure -- bring the dumpsters out of the enclosure by hand. Planning & Zoning Board MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80521 APPLICANT: Brinkman Partners, LLC on behalf of 203 W. Mulberry, LLC 3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Presented To: MAX Flats 203 W. Mulberry Table of Contents Project Narrative ……………………………………………………………………………..……………….. Page 1-3 Existing Site Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 4 Adjacent Properties …………………………………………………….……………………………………. Page 5-6 Nearby Properties …………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 7 Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 8-14 Mason Corridor ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 15-16 Refill Fort Collins ………………………………………..…………………………………………………….. Page 17-19 Project Compatibility & Streetscape ………………………………..……………………………….. Page 20-28 Infill Development/Site Constraints …………….……………………………………………………. Page 29-33 Neighbor Concerns …………………………………………….…………………………………………….. Page 34-35 1 MAX FLATS Brinkman Partners, LLC is proud to introduce MAX Flats. MAX Flats is an exciting mixed-use project located along the new and improved Mason Street Corridor and will feature the MAX Transit Mulberry Station at its Mason frontage. The site is within walking distance of CSU as well as Old Town Fort Collins and all that it offers including restaurants, theaters, museums, parks, bike trails and retail shopping. Existing Conditions The MAX Flats project is located at the southwest corner of Mason and Mulberry. The site is approximately 30,500 SF and is bounded to the north by Mulberry Street and to the east by Mason Street. Adjacent properties are comprised of multi-family rental, single family rental, commercial rental and a blighted property to the south that is currently condemned. The attached images provide further context to the overall density and make-up of the entire block. As you will see, the predominant use of this block is rental housing in a variety of products types. The site is located at the heart of the Transit Overlay District and is directly on the Mason Corridor. This area has been identified in both City Plan and Refill Fort Collins as a priority target area for infill and redevelopment. The project will ultimately share ROW with the newly constructed southbound Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT. Significant time and energy has been invested in designing a fully integrated TOD project that embraces the ideals of providing a high density, pedestrian oriented mixed- use project. Those same goals are shared in the vision as it is set forth in City Plan. A compilation of excerpts from City Plan is also attached for reference. The existing building on the site is currently vacant. It was constructed in 1969 as an automotive service facility and was occupied by University Motors from 1969 through the late 1980’s, and then by King’s Auto from the early 1990’s through 2010. The project has been through the new DDA review process and was unanimously approved for funding associated with infrastructure improvements in the city right of way. Project Description The proposed project is located at 203 W. Mulberry which is nicely situated between Old Town Fort Collins and the CSU campus. This project will integrate with the new MAX Transit Mulberry Station, which is on the northeast corner of the site. The proposed project consists of a single 5-story, 63,530 square foot, L shaped building that is positioned in a way to maximize the utilization of the site, enhance the urban fabric of the Mason Corridor. The upper 4 floors will be comprised of for-rent multi-family units geared to both professionals and students. They will consist of 32 one bedroom, 28 two bedroom and 4 three bedroom units for a total of 64 units or 100 bedrooms. The ground floor is designed to accommodate a 1,500 SF retail use that will serve as an amenity for both the tenants and the surrounding community. It will boast an attractive plaza and seating area at the corner of Mason and Mulberry that will promote both tenant and pedestrian interaction and promises to be a focal point of the neighborhood. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street- 2 level experience. The site will also boast an enhanced streetscape with new trees and landscaping, hardscape pavers and seating. 64 private parking spaces will be provided on site, mostly concealed from the street by the building, to serve the tenants and retail patrons along with ample bicycle parking. The building façade and streetscape has been designed in a way that focuses on the pedestrian experience and minimizes the impacts of the tuck under parking structure. An outdoor plaza is located at the prominent northeast corner adjacent to the MAX Transit Station and ground floor retail space so it can provide an interactive gathering area for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors. Significant care has been taken to integrate the MAX Transit Station and the plaza so that it is enhances the overall experience. We feel that the MAX Mulberry Station will become a destination stop along the Mason Corridor which will ultimately help to fuel the redevelopment of adjacent sites. The site plan evolved from numerous conversations with the design team, city staff, and the DDA staff. The consensus that came from those meetings was that this project needed to serve as a connection, not only geographically between Old Town and CSU, but also a connection with the MAX Transit Station and the local community. In order to achieve this goal, the design team focused a significant amount of effort in creating a streetscape, façade and plaza that will be inviting to the inhabitants of the building and the overall community. Desirability in Market / Benefit to Economy, Downtown, Public MAX Flats target market is the Old Town employee that wants to be within walking distance to their employer, but would rather rent than buy or a CSU student that wants to be within walking distance to both campus and the amenities Old Town has to offer. With the local economic landscape continually increasing the business traffic downtown, there is a growing population of professionals and students seeking this type of housing. Employers like OtterBox, who have located their headquarters in Old Town and expect to continue to add employees, will need and prefer urban, quality housing that is nearby. Students that want to be both close to campus and the urban lifestyle Old Town has to offer will desire the modern appeal of this property. Community Commercial Districts encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Vertical mixed- use is encouraged up to 6 stories. More broadly, higher residential density in the Old Town area will continue to drive demand for existing recreational amenities and retail services; this, in turn, will facilitate the further growth of the commercial components that make up the heart of the Old Town area. Residential occupancy in the downtown area will also promote the walkability of the City, as these residents are able to access the downtown amenities via foot or bicycle, rather than require the use of an automobile. With the new addition of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system, this will also open up the opportunity for residents in this location to easily travel the Mason Corridor without the use of an automobile. 3 Redevelopment and infill is encouraged in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas such as this location. It is encouraged to concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. This site is also located in the Growth Management Area which encourages a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-serviced by public transportation. MAX Flats supports City Plan principles and policies in the following ways: • Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of the community. • Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy-efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing for students on bus routes close to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus, Old Town, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use. • Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and redevelopment. • High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory way. • Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC. 4 Existing Site Conditions The existing site is located at the southwest corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building has sat vacant since the previous tenant, King’s Auto, closed in 2010 and has fallen into disrepair. The site is directly behind the new MAX Transit Mulberry Station and as such, it will be a focal point along the Mason Street Corridor. Adjacent Properties 209 W. Mulberry Street – Multi-family for-rent units directly west of existing site. 5 Adjacent Properties 212 W. Myrtle – West of existing site. 202 W. Myrtle – Condemned property directly south of existing site 206 W. Myrtle – Directly south of existing site. 208 W. Myrtle – Directly southwest of existing site. 6 3 415 S. Howes St. 224 Canyon Ave. Nearby Properties 212 W. Mulberry St. 625 S. Mason St. 203 W. Myrtle St. 531 S. College Ave. 429 S. Mason St. 425 S. College Ave. 415 S. Mason St. 7 8 Executive Summary Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan • City Plan / Plan Fort Collins o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor. o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas. o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and infill in targeted redevelopment areas. “Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity.” o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments. o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit stops. o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. 35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the Community Commercial Districts to promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however limit maximum building height to five to six stories.” o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns “Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.” • Land Use Code o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi- story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and services. o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings 9 Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first priority while also accommodating vehicular movement. o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. • Refill Fort Collins o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights Incentive. o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north (Schrader’s) and northeast (Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height. 10 The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing. Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor. 11 The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are proposing. The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at station areas. 12 13 14 Map Showing Zone District Overlay: Map Showing TOD Overlay: 15 Mason Corridor The Mason Corridor is a five-mile, north-south byway within the City of Fort Collins which extends from Cherry Street on the north to south of Harmony Road. The corridor is centered along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway property, located a few hundred feet west of College Avenue (US 287). The Mason Corridor and MAX Bus Rapid Transit provide the framework for future economic development and serve as the foundation to encourage community partnerships, private investment, active living, and attractive, urban lifestyles. The Mason Corridor is a fundamental connection between the City, Colorado State University, and local business and neighborhoods. Nearly 60 percent of all Fort Collins jobs are located within one-mile of the Corridor. In addition, public investment in the Mason Corridor will encourage private economic development along its length. New zoning changes will promote high density, mixed-use development around the stations. The transportation corridor also has the potential to generate transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities through the redevelopment of underutilized land along the corridor. TOD concentrates jobs, housing, and daily conveniences around transit stations. The theory behind TOD is that by locating walkable, higher-density, mixed-use areas around transit connections, this reduces the need to drive for daily convenience errands and commuting, which reduces the number of automobile trips on area roadways. TOD can also create attractive vibrant urban spaces and activity centers. Summary of Findings from Mason Corridor Economic Analysis: 1. The Mason Corridor will capture an estimated 18 percent of the forecasted higher density housing demand between 2006 and 2031, subject to land availability. 2. The Mason Street project provides additional accessibility to the downtown area and enhances the appeal of the area for residential development. 3. The Downtown residential market is expected to grow modestly over the next 15 years building on the success of early higher density developments. 4. The Colorado State University segment of the Mason Corridor is expected to provide TOD opportunities on both university and private land holdings and act as a catalyst for future redevelopment along the corridor. 5. Development in the southern segment of the corridor is expected to concentrate on key redevelopment parcels at the Drake Road Station and South Transit Center. 6. The City’s potential investment of $4 to $5 million as local match funds could leverage $58 million in Federal transit funding, as well as generate an estimated $6.1 million in property tax revenue and $14.4 million in sales tax revenue over the next 25 years. Additionally, the project construction is estimated to generate $108.3 million in one-time benefit. 7. The Mason Corridor is expected to provide a positive climate for TOD, which creates a clear nexus between the transit improvements and enhanced development opportunities and higher land values on surrounding sales. This nexus provides a basis to implement a corridor specific financing mechanism, such as a GID, to fund a portion of the transit improvements. However, the City as a whole also benefits from the new improvements and, therefore, should share in a portion of the cost. THE Connections The Mason Corridor and MAX will provide both community and regional connections. MAX will link Downtown Fort Collins, Colorado State University (Main Campus, Veterinary Teaching Hospital and Natural Resources Research Center), South College Retail, Foothills Mall, Park & Rides, as well as connect to east/west transit options and trail systems. MAX will also provide much needed regional connections to the North Front Range and the Denver Metro Area. The Mason Corridor connects to the existing Foxtrot transit service from Fort Collins to Loveland as well as coincides with the North I-25 Environmental Study, which examines long term potential regional connections using Bus Rapid Transit along the busy I-25 corridor, or Commuter Rail on the Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad corridor. 17 Refill Fort Collins CITY REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES Redevelopment is change, and change raises unique issues. Redevelopment involves extraordinary costs and difficulties which the private market alone cannot always reasonably be expected to absorb. Seventy- five percent (75%) of the citizens responding to a survey conducted during the recent update of City Plan in 2004 agreed the City should provide incentives that encourage redevelopment of under-utilized areas within the existing city limits. Ultimately, any City participation must be tailored to specific public purposes and unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The City Plan support for redevelopment is best summarized in the following Principle: Principle GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in targeted areas where general agreement exists that these activities are beneficial within the Community Growth Management Area boundary. The key to this principle is the promotion of well-planned redevelopment in targeted areas ideas. The intent is to avoid whole scale disruption of viable neighborhood and non-residential districts, and to focus public efforts on strategic locations where change can have greater impact. Policies GM-8.1, GM-8.2, CCD-1.3, ED-1.7, and TC-4.5 in City Plan describe the kinds of areas in which redevelopment should occur: • Community Commercial Districts, specifically Campus West, North College, Foothills Mall area, and Downtown. • Areas where it is generally agreed that redevelopment would be beneficial, i.e. areas targeted for redevelopment according to adopted subarea plans. • Areas where there is potential for efficient transportation access between jobs, housing, and services, for example, along enhanced travel corridors (e.g., College Avenue and Mason Street). • Areas of outdated development originally built at the fringe of the City that has become more central as the city has grown around them. Mixed-Use Redevelopment Site MULBERRY BUS RAPID TRANSIT STATION AREA NWC OF MULBERRY ST AND COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Josh Birks Economic Advisor 970-221-6324 jbirks@fcgov.com fcgov.com/refill The information in this brochure was obtained from public sources. The purpose of the brochure is to encourage reinvestment into targeted redevelopment areas. The properties contained within this site are not owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City’s sole intent is promote redevelopment by providing information, assistance and financial and infrastructure incentives in areas that have the greatest potential for new commercial and residential development. # OF PARCELS 14 # OF OWNERS 8 BUILDINGS 125,957 sf LAND 11.24 acres DESCRIPTION Prime redevelopment location for high density uses at a major gateway into historic downtown. LOCATION This site is on the northwest and northeast corners of the College/Mulberry intersection. Current uses consist of a bank, sporting goods store, supermarket, offices, 2-3 residences, a gas station, a parking lot, and several vacant buildings. N ZONING D – Downtown, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict MAX HEIGHT 7-9 stories, 115 feet INCENTIVES Downtown Development Authority (Tax Increment Financing) 20 Project Compatibility & Design This new development will set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in a neighborhood that has no clearly defined architectural character. The building is 5 stories as allowed in the C-C district. While larger and taller than the immediate neighboring buildings, the building is articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional in massing to its neighbors. The articulation includes balcony recesses, projections at the ground floor, as well as overall massing resulting in forms with a height to width proportion of less that 1:3. The building features a clear base, middle, and top. The base is formed by the predominate use of masonry on the ground floor. This base element is further articulated by a “wainscot” and use of brick to highlight the focal elements of the retail and residents’ entry. Differing colors and materials colors help to further articulate the building. The proposed colors and materials of brick, ground-face block, stucco, panel siding, and metal panel are all found on buildings in the highly eclectic surrounding neighborhood. Project Streetscape The focal point of the site is the plaza at the intersection of Mason and Mulberry. This plaza will provide seating for patrons of the retail (envisioned as a coffee shop) and residents of the building. It is also conveniently located for use by MAX BRT riders. Uses along the Mulberry Avenue frontage are almost exclusively retail and the plaza. Uses along the Mason Street frontage include the plaza, residents’ entries, MAX BRT stop, bike racks, and stairs. These uses at both façades exceed 50% of the total length and will increase activity on the street, enhance the pedestrian experience. Both facades provide pedestrian visual interest by being subdivided and proportioned by windows, entrances, columns, pilasters, recesses, awnings, and trellises. These elements comprise more than 50% of the façade length and serve to break the façade into modules of less than 30’. Green Wall Trellis System Green wall trellis system is a modular framework grid typically wall-mounted to exterior structures creating aesthetic living green facades. Grids are commonly used for partitions, canopies, arbors, and around columns for interior and outdoor spaces. These high quality eco-units are constructed to accommodate a growing space for various plants and vines. The building block of this modular system is a rigid, light weight, three-dimensional panel made from a powder coated galvanized and welded steel wire that supports plants with both a face grid and a panel depth. This system is designed to hold a green facade off the wall surface so that plant materials do not attach to the building, provides a “captive” growing environment for the plant with multiple supports for the tendrils, and helps to maintain the integrity of a building membrane. Panels can be stacked and joined to cover large areas, or formed to create shapes and curves, are can be made from recycled content steel and are recyclable. Because the panels are rigid, they can span between structures and can also be used for freestanding green walls There are significant benefits to both the public and private sectors resulting from the successful use of green walls. Green walls have a great potential for positive environmental change in dense urban areas, particularly given the large surface areas on buildings that are available for retrofitting to these technologies. For example, the emissions that can concentrate in multi-level parking areas in downtown cores can be reduced by the presence of large leafy areas. A green wall with a mass of plant leaf material can absorb carbon oxides and heavy metal particles while shading and screening these large structures. Acknowledgements: We thank the following for the information provided. Randy Sharp, Sharp & Diamond Landscape Architecture Inc.,James Sable, greenscreen®, Flavia Bertram and Eva Mohan, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Steven Peck, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities 21 Glacier English Ivy will be used on the north facing trellis system. Coral Honeysuckle will be used on the east facing trellis systems. Both of these plant species are a broadleaf evergreen vine that will provide cover during the winter months. Acknowledgements: Photos and plant specifications provided by ONLINEPLANTGUIDE.com 22 23 MAX Transit Mulberry Station Infill Development/Site Constraints Additional ROW Provided An additional 7.5-ft (750 sq.ft.) of right-of-way (ROW) is being dedicated along Mulberry Street. This results in a half-ROW width of 57.5-ft, which affords an ultimate full ROW of 115-ft. Mulberry Street is classified as a 4-lane arterial on the City’s Master Street Plan, which specifies the 115-ft ROW width. Floodplain Applicability & Site Design Impacts The entire site falls within the 100-year floodplain for the Old Town Basin, as regulated by the City of Fort Collins. Mulberry Street is a high risk floodway, subject to No Rise criteria. The site itself is high risk flood fringe with a 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) roughly 1.5-ft above the existing sidewalk. All residential dwelling units and HVAC equipment need to be elevated another 1.5-ft above the BFE (i.e., approximately 3-ft higher than the existing sidewalk). This causes the dwelling units to start on the second floor, and condenser units to be placed on the roof. The main floor commercial space and stair tower entrances need to be floodproofed 1.5-ft above the BFE. Floodproofing is not allowed for the residential units. Summary of Modification Requests The Max Flats project is requesting Four Modifications of Standards. • Parking lot Interior Landscaping/Intervening Landscape Island • Bike Parking Spaces • Parking Lot Setback • Compact Parking Stalls 1. 6% Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Intervening Landscape Island Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural columns for the building and parking structure. • Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking structure be compressed in a north-south direction • The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to provide trees that maximize areas of shade. The landscape plan shows oak trees spaced every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that these trees will provide sufficient shade for the parking area. • Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit, while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street. 2. Bike Parking Spaces Modification Request • The project ultimately provides excess bike parking spaces if the spaces located in the r.o.w. are counted towards the total required spaces. • The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking and bicycling as alternative means of transportation 29 • The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on the east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right-of-way that will be used adjacent to the transit stop. 3. Parking Lot Setback Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural columns for the building and parking structure. • The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for visual screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west. • The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Compact Parking Stall Modification Request • Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating the structural colums for the building and parking structure. • Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking structure be compressed in a north-south direction • The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking stall depths and the parking structure. • Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit, while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street. Nominal and Inconsequential because of the following: • The project embodies many of the principles and policies of City Plan for infill, redevelopment, transit-oriented, mixed-use development • The project is consistent with the vision set forth in the Community Commercial District by providing high density residential over ground floor retail. • The building placement and site layout orient the primary commercial building entrances to the street intersection, provides an outdoor gathering space, and contains an integrated transit stop. • Building is orientated to the build-to right of way line on Mason Street. • The parking structure meets the design intent of the TOD Overlay District and the project reduces the visual impact of the parking lot by locating the lot behind the building, with a perimeter landscape buffer. • The project, being constrained by the narrow site, is requesting three Modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. Because of the construction of the Mason Street BRT transit stop, the parking spaces that were available on Mason Street will go away, which means that those who are currently parking in these spaces will have to find parking on the neighboring streets. • By granting the parking-related Modifications, this project is able to achieve its goal of providing off- street parking for its residents to use. 30 Neighbor Concerns: 1) The neighbors mentioned concern relating to the compatibility of our project to the existing 2 story multi-family property directly to the west based on the following items: a. Our project being 5 stories with no step back at the upper floor. b. The stark nature of the west elevation c. Our project being 5 stories lacks human scale Response: a. The 5-story building is allowed by code and meets the stated goals of increased density and height along the Mason Street corridor. The building is positioned so as to meet the “build-to” requirements with as much relief to properties to the west and south as feasible. b. The west elevation admittedly is not as visually interesting as the street frontages. This is largely due to there being no ground floor façade, which is necessary to allow parking. Balconies are cost-prohibitive throughout the project, so we have elected to provide them only along the street frontage where they will have the most visual impact. Outside those two differences, the west elevation has the same materials, colors, and changes in plane as the street side facades. c. Human scale is introduced by a substantial amount of articulation, especially at the street level where interaction with the building will occur. 2) The neighbors challenged the identification of this project as mixed use based on the limited percentage of commercial use as compared to residential use. Response: Section 5.1.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code defines Mixed Use as follows: Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot, tract or parcel of land, building or structure with two (2) or more different uses including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, public uses, personal service or entertainment uses, designed, planned and constructed as a unit. 3) The neighbors identified concerns with how the pedestrian walkway passes through the transit station. Response: Numerous meetings were held with the planning staff and with the various entities involved with the construction and design of the Max Transit project. We were directed to integrate the sidewalk with the transit station as it is indicated on the drawings. 34 4) The neighbors were not satisfied with the overall material selections for the exterior finishes and felt that our project needed to incorporate more masonry in order to better reflect the existing character of Mason Street. Response: While masonry is commonly used throughout the neighborhood, there is no single overridingly predominant material. Furthermore when masonry is used, it is frequently used as a base or accent element rather than on an entire building. The judicious use of masonry as proposed is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood. 5) The neighbors challenged our projects ability to meet the TOD standard for parking structures requiring ground level facades to be comprised of at least 50% retail and other uses. Response: Our calculations show that the project has 83.7% retail and other uses along Mulberry and 66.1% along Mason. Other non-parking uses include the plaza, residents’ entries, bike racks, the BRT station, and stairs. See the Street Frontage Exhibit. 6) The neighbors were concerned with the parking lot serving as the primary ground floor use. Response: The overall site plan and ground floor uses evolved from a balancing of infill site constraints and competing needs presented in the land use code. We feel the result is a ground floor that provides an activated mixed-use pedestrian environment and incorporates screened surface parking, bike parking, community space, retail amenity, landscaping and the transit station. 7) The neighbors feel that ground floor façade does not provide adequate relief to pedestrians as it is intended in the code. Response: The ground floor has a number of active uses and will provide a considerable amount of visual interest and relief by changes in plane, changes in material and color, awnings, canopies, roof overhangs, and balconies. As such, the building meets all applicable section of the code. 35 1 1 Max Flats – 203 W. Mulberry Zone District: Community Commercial (CC) Mixed-50+ Units: Use with Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) 2 Site Plan 2 3 4 3 5 Modification A: Reduction in parking lot landscaping Required: 6% (505 square feet) Provided: 2.7% (224 square feet) 6 Modification B: Provide off-site bicycle parking Required: 104 parking spaces (61 enclosed / 43 fixed) Provided: 96 on-site; 10 in ROW (65 enclosed / 41 fixed) 4 7 Modification C: Reduction in parking lot setback Required: 5 feet Provided: 4 feet 2 inches 8 Modification D: Increased % of compact parking spaces Required: 40% maximum Provided: 58% 5 9 Original Design 10 Proposed Design 6 11 Proposed Design 12 Proposed Design 7 13 Proposed Design 14 Mulberry Station 8 15 Mulberry Station ATTACHMENT 4 Applicant Presentation at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing April 18, 2013 MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Fort Collins, CO 80521 MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Presented Planning To: & Zoning Board Location Overview Located at the southwest corner of W. Mulberry Street and S. Mason Street. MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Zoning & TOD Maps MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Community Zone District Commercial Overlay (CC) TOD Overlay DDA Boundary Map MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Existing Conditions MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Infill • Floodplain Challenges • • Sewer Site Width & Utilities Floodplain MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Located Fort Collins in the Old City Town of Basin Risk Flood 100 Year Fringe High Floodproofing required of 3’ above a minimum grade for entire building MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Utility Plan MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Site Plan & Width Adjacent Properties MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats 202 directly W. Myrtle south of – Condemned existing site property 209 W. Mulberry – Multi-family for-rent units directly west of existing site 212 W. Myrtle – West of existing site Nearby 224 Canyon Ave. Properties 415 S. Howes St. 415 S. Mason St. 425 S. College Ave. 429 S. Mason St. 531 S. College Ave. 625 S. Mason St. 203 W. Myrtle St. 625 S. Mason St. 212 W. Mulberry St. MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats 203 W. Myrtle St. Preliminary Conceptual Review Design Review 9/8/26/11 12 Plaza Meeting Review with with the DDA City Staff Staff 12/12/4/18/12 12 Meeting PDP Round with 1 the DDA and City Staff 1/1/2/7/13 13 Design Façade Review Review with with DDA City Staff Staff 1/1/16/8/13 13 Called Meeting to with reach Adjacent out to Neighbors Property Owners 1/1/22/17/13 13 Design DDA Board Review Meeting with DDA Staff 1/2/30/14/13 13 DDA PDP Round Board Meeting 2 3/3/14/6/13 13 Individual Change to Meeting Type 2 Review with Staff Process and Neighbors 4/3/4/26/13 13 Provide Neighborhood Modified Meeting Imagery to Neighbors 4/4/10/15/13 13 MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Outreach Timeline “is the comprehensive we envision Fort plan Collins for the over City the of Fort 25 years Collins, and and beyond.illustrates ” how MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats City Plan • redevelopment Principles EH-4 and and LIV-infill 5 in encourage targeted promoting redevelopment and prioritizing areas. the “Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations transit in the that future are currently and that or can will support be served higher by high levels frequency of activity.” MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats City Plan • Principle communitywide LIV-35 identifies destinations Community and hubs Commercial for a high-frequency Districts as transit system. 35.the 3 Community Scale – “Encourage Commercial higher Districts intensity to promote infill and the redevelopment creation of in active community destinations and to create for surrounding concentrations neighborhoods of housing and and the employment vertical mixed-sufficient use; however to support limit maximum high-frequency building transit. height Encourage to five to six stories.” MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats City Plan • Identifies and Infill Potential this site on and the notes list of the Fort site Collins as having Areas TOD with Building Redevelopment Heights Incentive. • The north city (Schrader’s) has also identified and northeast and is (promoting Sports Authority) the sites as directly being part to the of an 11.up 24 to 115 acre feet redevelopment in height. site that can accommodate 7-9 stories and MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Refill Fort Collins MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Max Height: 7-9 Stories, 115 feet MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats City Plan: Page 95 Refill Fort Collins: Chapter 1 Plan Fort Collins Mason & Mulberry MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Plan Fort Collins: Pg. 23 The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at station areas. Project Attributes • Target market is the Old Town employee or CSU student/faculty. • “Bridge” project between Old Town and CSU. • Integration with the MAX Transit Mulberry Station • Plaza & Retail Space will promote tenant & pedestrian interaction MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats MAX Bus Rapid Transit Mulberry Station MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Additional ROW Dedication MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Distances Between Buildings MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Mason Street - No Parking Lane MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats Neighbor Concerns • • Compatibility Identification of Project as Mixed-Use • • Pedestrian Building Materials Interaction with Transit Station • • TOD Parking Parking Structure Standard • Ground Floor Facade MAX 203 W. Mulberry Flats ATTACHMENT 5 Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing April 18, 2013 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, April 18, 2013 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: MAX Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., April 18, 2013 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Kristin Kirkpatrick Seth Lorson, City Planner John Hatfield Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Emily Heinz (**Boardmember Heinz recused herself from the discussion of this item) 2 1 CHAIR ANDY SMITH: The very next item that we’ll discuss this evening is the MAX Flats 2 Project Development Plan 120034. We have one Boardmember that will be stepping out for this item and 3 before we get into the staff report, Angelina, have there been any written comments received since our 4 worksession? 5 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes, since the worksession there’s been letters from the 6 DDA, Todd Dangerfield and Matt Robenault, and a letter from Bruce and Susan Kruel-Froseth and some 7 renderings for the MAX station from staff. 8 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Alright, well let’s move into the staff report. Seth, please. 9 SETH LORSON: Just one quick correction, Angelina, there should be one more from Ann 10 Hutchinson. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Oh, we did get that. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: I’m sorry, I must not have it on my log, but I did distribute it. 13 MR. LORSON: You did distribute it you say? 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes. 15 CHAIR SMITH: Yes, I’ve got it. Go ahead. 16 MR. LORSON: Good evening Planning and Zoning Board. I’m Seth Lorson with Community 17 Development and Neighborhood Services. The applicant for MAX Flats is requesting approval of a 18 mixed-use building at the corner of Mulberry and Mason. It’s in the Community Commercial zone 19 district and it’s a mixed-use building of fifty plus units, therefore it’s subject to your review. Here is the 20 site plan for the building up here. There is about 1,400 square feet of retail on the corner, a plaza, as well 21 as some other elements along the Mason Street…the MAX station, there is the entry to the building, 22 there’s bike parking and there’s some interesting landscaping elements that are called green screens. This 23 is a rendering of the proposed design. Another rendering, this one is from the north end, as you can see 24 the adjacent properties to the west in this rendering. Again, this is an elevation as opposed to the 25 perspective drawing. This one is from the east side looking at it; this is how it will be experienced from 26 the Mason Corridor. 27 There are four modifications being requested for this project. The first one is a reduction in the 28 parking lot landscaping from the required six percent to 2.7 percent. The second modification is to meet 29 the parking…the bike parking standard, by providing parking in the public right-of-way. When they do 30 provide that in the right-of-way, they will have adequate bike parking. In order to do that, they will be 31 required to have a revocable permit through our Engineering Department. The third modification is a 32 reduction in the setback to the west from five feet to four feet, two inches. And, the fourth modification is 33 an increase in the percentage of compact parking spaces from forty percent, which is the maximum in the 34 Land Use Code, to fifty-eight percent. I have some additional information that will serve some of the 35 questions. Staff has reviewed this Project Development Plan and finds that it’s in compliance with all 36 sections of the Land Use Code with the exception of the four modifications, but that they do meet the 3 1 standards for approval for the four modifications. All of those are available and details are in your staff 2 reports. I’m here to answer any questions. Additionally, we have Emma McArdle here from Transfort to 3 answer any questions about the MAX station. The applicant is here to answer…to give a presentation as 4 well. Thank you. 5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you Seth. Let’s go ahead and have the applicant make a 6 presentation please. Whatever microphone you prefer. 7 KEVIN BRINKMAN: Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, we’ll be the developer, contractor, 8 and we’ll do the property management and leasing on the project. This is Eduardo Illanes with Oz 9 Architects and he’ll be talking about the design today. So, we’re excited to be here. We feel a little bit 10 like the opening act with all these people here, so I think we’ll get through our part here fairly quick. Our 11 project we’ve been working on since August of 2011, and it’s the MAX Flats project here…let me go to 12 the slideshow. 13 Alright, so just to orientate ourselves, this is on the southwest corner of Mulberry and Mason, and 14 the vision that we set out for is to do a project that’s very similar to Flats at the Oval, our project there at 15 Laurel and Howes, and to make a project like that successful, there’s many attributes that we look at for 16 site selection. So, one, as you can see here, it is on…right between Old Town and CSU, and is right on 17 the transit stop, that’s something that drove us to the site. Another very important factor for us is that it’s 18 in the Community Commercial zoning district. This allows us to go to five stories, which is important for 19 the economics of the project to work. And also, it’s in the TOD overlay. This allows us to park it more 20 in line with what market is, and that allows us to get all the characteristics to work for the project. 21 Additionally, we look for projects in the DDA boundary. This is the DDA map, and this project 22 was in kind of the growth area of the DDA boundary, so we’re actually annexed into the DDA. So we 23 were awarded with money to go to public improvements in the right-of-way. So, that has been through 24 the DDA’s Board twice and has been through the City Council with two readings to get into that 25 boundary. 26 So, you know with all those things that we look for and site selection, usually the challenge is it’s 27 an infill site that usually has inherent challenges. So, the site here…these are existing photos. It was 28 King’s Auto before, and…auto sales and repair shop. So, it’s been vacant and on the market for about 29 two years. Another challenge is it’s in the City of Fort Collins flood…high flood fringe, so that means 30 that we couldn’t do residential units on the main level, or subterranean, and we had to flood-proof all the 31 ground floor, and so that was a challenge. The other challenge, as you can see here, we didn’t realize this 32 until we went through our conceptual review, that there’s a sewer line that goes through the alley to 33 Mason, and when they vacated the alley, there wasn’t an easement put on the land there, and so we found 34 that out downstream. So, we have to relocate the sewer there and tie it into the homes there to the south. 35 So, that’s one thing that’s in our development plan. The other challenge, the site is almost identical 36 dimensions of a football field, so it’s…the width is just very narrow, and so you can see parking…to 37 optimize parking is a challenge. We needed to do one-way diagonal parking and we needed more…some 38 of the modifications you saw to be able to park it the way that we felt we needed to. 39 And the other challenge is just the eclectic area and architecture. This is a view of all the 40 properties that are on the block, and so you can see definitely a variety from…this one is on the corner of 41 Myrtle, it’s currently condemned. There’s a couple modular units. This is the property just to the west 4 1 that goes I think pretty much the whole duration of the site. And then if you go out a little bit farther and 2 you look at the corridor, you have a little bit of everything. You have eleven to twelve stories here on the 3 two Park Lane Towers, Cortina is seven to eight stories, everything from the Schrader’s gas station to the 4 large church across the street to Sports Authority to the new 415 restaurant. So, very eclectic architecture 5 and uses, and the challenge that that brought was when we…we reached out to all the neighbors and I 6 think it was in December and January, and there was a little bit of competing interest on a lot of the 7 commercial users wanted us to create as much density as possible to help their businesses, and create as 8 much parking as possible so it wouldn’t spill out on the street. The residential neighbors wanted less 9 density but more amenities that would kind of help their renters. So, we heard a lot of kind of conflicting 10 feedback. 11 And this is, I think, just helpful to understand the process that we went through, and I can go 12 through it quickly. We started our first conceptual review in August 2011, and for almost nine months we 13 worked through all those issues that we found that are inherent in that infill site. We went back through a 14 PDR just over a year later, and then we went through a specific plaza review with City staff. We met 15 with the DDA staff on the project, we had a first PDP submittal January 2nd, and we bought the property 16 at the same time period…a specific review for the façade with City staff, a specific design review with the 17 DDA staff. One of the things we did there was just making sure that we coordinated the BRT transit stop 18 and make sure that interacted perfectly with the project. We met…reached out to all the property 19 owners…we met with several of them. A design review with the DDA staff January 30th…first time 20 presenting at the DDA Board meeting …implemented some of their design suggestions. Second round of 21 PDP submittal in March, second DDA Board meeting where we received approval. Our process was 22 changed to a Type II review process…again we met with individual meetings with staff and neighbors. 23 We had the neighborhood meeting on April 10th, and then we’ve provided the…what we heard from the 24 neighborhood meeting, we’ve revised since then, and that’s what we’re presenting today. And so we’ve 25 gotten that out to all the neighbors of interest since then. So, that’s a little bit of a history of how we got 26 here. 27 Vision for the project…we’ve really looked at City Plan to provide a lot of the vision, and as all 28 you know, it’s the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins and it illustrates how we envision Fort 29 Collins over the next twenty-five years and beyond. And, we just pulled out a couple of things that we 30 thought applied to this project that we thought you’d find interesting. This is one…concentrate higher 31 density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by high- 32 frequency transit in the future and can support higher levels of activity. Another one…encourage higher 33 intensity infill and redevelopment…at the bottom it says, encourage vertical mixed-use but, however, 34 limit maximum building height to five to six stories. So, our project is five stories, and then we also 35 found in the Refill Fort Collins document, it identifies this side is on the list of Fort Collins areas of 36 redevelopment/infill potential and it notes this actual site is having TOD building heights and incentives. 37 And then also, the City is promoting the site just across the street – it’s about fourteen acres…so you can 38 see our site in the very bottom left corner there. This is Schrader’s, this is Sports Authority, and they’re 39 promoting seven to nine stores, a hundred and fifteen feet, so we felt our height is very appropriate as the 40 Community Commercial zoning district allows five stories, and this abuts the transition up to seven to 41 nine stories. So that’s why we felt that our height was appropriate. Also in City Plan and Refill Fort 42 Collins, this is from our site looking to the northeast, and so you can see a project that’s very similar in 43 character of what we’re proposing. Also in Plan Fort Collins, this is another transit stop location and it 5 1 specifies, the Transit Oriented Development Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher 2 density, pedestrian friendly mixed-use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at 3 station areas. And so, that’s what we set out to do. We took that as a vision and then we brought in Oz 4 Architects, who’s an award-winning architect, and we set out to design a project that…its target market is 5 Old Town employees…or excuse me, Old Town employees and CSU student…faculty. We want it to be 6 really a bridge catalyst project between Old Town and CSU. We really wanted to integrate with that 7 MAX transit stop, and also wanted to create a plaza and retail space that promotes tenant and pedestrian 8 interaction. So, with that I can hand it over to Eduardo to go through the design. Thank you. 9 EDUARDO ILLANES: Good evening, my name is Eduard Illanes, I’m with Oz Architecture, 10 representing the project as you just heard. As I get my bearings…I want to start by giving you a reference 11 of how this building hits the ground, as clearly that’s the best reference, if you will, to understand how a 12 project fulfills the need of neighborhood fabric. First thing I could tell you is that I applaud the fact that 13 infill projects have been developed in the core of your city to create the densities that are going to allow 14 your downtown to thrive…that would be more people and more activities…you’re doing it with the MAX 15 station as is [sic] providing that connectivity, bridging the University with the downtown. In that regard, 16 this building, on this plan is illustrating the corner of…of Mulberry on the north with Mason on the east 17 side of the building. What you see in here then is that on the ground level we have a building that’s 18 coming pretty much to that build-to line…the property line…in such a way that it defines the activities of 19 the pedestrian interaction that is happening in the building and also with the neighbors that are navigating 20 through the site. On the corner, we have a community space. We’re creating a plaza that pretty much 21 opens up the visual interaction of automobiles as they approaching [sic] the corner to see farther out to 22 what’s going to be the future station that is almost completed by now. 23 Phasing…Mulberry also, on the north of the building…the built area facing the street is a retail 24 space that also then faces the plaza on the east. As it turns around, what we have is the residential entry to 25 this mixed-use project and a wall that…allows us to invite activities with bicycle parking, benches and so 26 forth, that not only relate to the building, but it will also allow the people waiting on the station to either 27 sit on those benches and/or utilize that plaza beyond. So when you look at that in building mass and 28 design, what you see in a building, that’s addressing on the ground level the pedestrian, but it also allows 29 the building to have a body on the upper floors, and then eventually on the top of the building, a pretty 30 distinctive cap, if you will, that frames how the building ends on the upper floor. But, more importantly, 31 as the building turns the corner, it’s creating a space for the community activity…that community pocket 32 park almost on the corner where we are incorporating not only sitting areas, but we’re hoping to 33 incorporate activities like a piano, sitting tables, benches and so forth. 34 Now, when you look at that in more detail, you’ll see on the lower left the blow-ups that I want to 35 show you a little bit on the top here where we are incorporating activities that allow us to connect the 36 building to the street in such a way that it’s soft, it’s engaging, it allows the people to participate. And, 37 not only that, but it also is very porous, it’s…I think it’s critical for the building to allow that interaction 38 between people and uses. So, you see in the corner on the top of Mason and Mulberry, and now on the 39 bottom, number two, you are seeing right in the middle of the building here, the station connected with 40 the main entry to the residential tower up above. What you’re seeing also is that the ground level that you 41 saw…was a parking garage pretty much, it has this wall that is articulating pretty much the bulkheads for 42 future development if indeed retail was going to become a use that this street…the market could afford to 6 1 be here in such a way that we could modify those locations with storefront and create a small retails 2 space. 3 Farther, I wanted to illustrate to you what happens with the building when you…the base is 4 terminated then the building on top is highly articulated on layer [sic] with not only vertical elements but 5 also a lot of horizontal elements that are allowing us to create that activity that not only represents what 6 happens inside of the building, but also projects with these balconies such that we are articulating the 7 events that are happening along the street. That happens both on the Mason side and on the Mulberry 8 side. One other important component of the building, clearly, is the definition of this corner of Mason 9 and Mulberry on which we are not only creating this void that articulates a plaza on the ground floor, but 10 it also has an element that is more distinctive… 11 One of the questions, clearly, that…kind of requested for all of us to articulate in terms of 12 understanding how this building hits the face of the street, if you will, as it goes up, was in section…and 13 I’m going to show you three sections, two along Mason and one along Mulberry, that articulate first. The 14 first one coming on Mason going up north, what you see is the street, landscape strip, an eight-foot 15 sidewalk, the property line, a building inset, and that’s the place where we’re proposing to have 16 bicycles…bicycle parking, if you will, in such a way that the wheel of the parking…or the wheel of the 17 bicycle is projecting a little bit beyond the property line but not crossing the sidewalk. Therefore the 18 sidewalk is clearly articulated in such a way that the bicycles are not interrupting the traffic. But it 19 changes as you move forward up the street where now the bicycles are on the other side of the sidewalk, 20 allowing in between the sidewalk and the building and on all these insets, the potential furniture, if you 21 will, by creating benches and more activities along the street. Clearly when you go to the Mulberry cross- 22 section of how the building hits the ground, the pedestrian is faced with…the retail space is projecting 23 into the street such that the building sits far behind. We have a much wider section between building and 24 street, anticipating that potentially that street can change with time such that the sidewalk may move in, 25 and as such we have enough space between the automobile and the building as well. So you are also 26 seeing how the building is not just one flat…but articulates and the balconies, allowing us to create a lot 27 of dynamic movement throughout the building. 28 In terms of materiality, and this was a discussion that involved City staff as well as the neighbor, 29 the idea is that we are going to have a very strong pedestrian base that’s more tactile, following a bit the 30 vocabulary created in your downtown with brick and stone, clearly the stone is way too expensive to be 31 utilized here, so we are mimicking the base of the building with ground face block that mimics limestone, 32 if you will, in such a way that there’s a wainscot at all the retail fronts as they continue throughout Mason, 33 and at the stair towers, a base that’s a little bit higher but it defines the water line, if you will, of the 34 pedestrian base of the building. You’re seeing the plaza, the coffee shop, the retail projection into 35 Mulberry, and then what you’re seeing is the front facing Mason. So, we went from limestone-looking 36 material to brick, and eventually the body of the building is stucco in several colors. We are looking at 37 the creation of balconies that are recessed into the building and railings that project…and in places one is 38 different than the other such that the building has enough articulation not only horizontally as well as 39 vertically. 40 Now one discussion that we had with the neighbors as well with staff, is how we could bring 41 more of this brick to that iconic corner on Mason and Mulberry, so now we are bringing the brick all the 42 way up to the top of the fourth story, pretty much creating a lantern on the upper floor with a different 43 material, again in that instance we’re going to use stucco. There are some other materials that we’re using 7 1 in the building to allow these openings to the parking garage, and potentially retrofits for retail, we are 2 allowing that opening to be infill with a green wall which is a material…you might want to open that box 3 for me please…it’s a material that allows vines to grow in in such a way that what we have is almost a 4 living wall in lieu of just a blank wall or a solid wall. You see also that the insets that the building creates 5 where the balconies are up above, have on the back, almost a wood slat fence, if you will…very nicely 6 articulated…that allows the backdrop for the bicycle parking that’s inset into the building. We’re 7 proposing some signage to define the use…the commercial use on the bottom, as well as some signage to 8 define the name of the building on the façades. 9 Now here again you get to see the entire composition of this building, as it defines pretty much 10 this transit-oriented corner that you have created on your…well, a block away from main street, if you 11 will. This is the material that I was articulating…this is what…the green wall comes like this; it’s a three- 12 dimensional space frame that allows then, the vines to grow on them. It’s being used…I think it’s being 13 used also here in your community already. It’s a very interesting product introduced into the market 14 about ten years ago, and it’s worked pretty successfully for everybody. Questions? 15 CHAIR SMITH: No, I don’t think so…not yet anyway. Do you have more of your staff…I mean 16 your applicant presentation? Do you have any more team members coming up? 17 MR. ILLANES: That’s it. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, Jennifer you have a question right now? 19 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: No… 20 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright. 21 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask one quick question? The modification 22 that you’re seeking for the parking landscaping requirements from the six percent down to the 2.7…does 23 that include other vertical green walls in that percentage as well…or? 24 MR. ILLANES: No. 25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because it’s not in the parking area? Okay. 26 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, what we’ll do is, at this point, if you’re done with your presentation, we’ll 27 ask staff to step back up and maybe clarify, or if there was any other pieces to the presentation we might 28 need to hear, Seth? And if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. Thank you to the applicant for your 29 presentation. 30 MR. LORSON: There’s one element that I would like to highlight. There’s been a lot of 31 interaction with this project and staff, and staff with the neighbors, and the neighbors with the applicant, 32 and a lot of conversations have gone on about the impact on the neighborhood, the architecture, and these 33 kind of elements. I just wanted to highlight something real quick that…the original design, as you can 34 see up here on the screen, you see that this is not brick, and this corner here is kind of full, if you will. 35 What they have done is…they’ve done a couple of elements that was [sic] trying to step down towards the 36 neighbors and bring a little bit warmer character to the building, and that’s what I’ve been told is different 37 than what you even have in your packet, so there were some last minute changes there with that step 38 down. So, I really don’t have anything else to add other than those. I think the applicant would be able to 39 speak a little further towards any changes that may have happened. 8 1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright…Jennifer, you have a question real quick? Alright. 2 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Seth, on that…so the only place that we’ve added brick is up 3 that column? Or was the piece across…? 4 MR. LORSON: You mean down here at the base? 5 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, was that added as well? 6 MR. LORSON: That was already…so, in your packet, it’s already designed that way. As you can 7 see, where it comes up here, formerly that was metal…that’d be great. 8 MR. BRINKMAN: So, the…there’s probably four different changes. The brick is one that we 9 heard from several neighbors that it’s a real material that’s present a lot in Old Town, and so we did have 10 metal paneling there before, so all of that area went to brick. The setback was a big thing for us, as it 11 really affects the economics of a project, but it was important for the neighbors so we need to set that 12 back right here, that goes all the way towards the south. Another element that we did, we created 13 these…this element on the top of each stair tower there, so that brought, what we heard, was a better 14 element to the project, and we also created this base so it wasn’t one mass going up. We created this 15 bottom base here with material. So, those are a lot of the things we heard over the last couple weeks…we 16 heard at the neighborhood meeting, and the changes we made since then to today. 17 MR. ILLANES: We also added brick along the Mason façade. So you’re seeing that…was block 18 now is brick as it progresses through, moving to the south. 19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, so the stair protrusion, or whatever it is out there, 20 is…that’s metal tile? Is that what I’m seeing? The part that sticks out…that’s the stair? 21 MR. ILLANES: No, that is concrete block. 22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Concrete block? Okay, thank you. 23 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. John, you have a question? 24 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: Not a question, but I just wanted to compliment the staff 25 and the applicant on the detail and all the work they put into this. It’s quite extensive here…the audience 26 has no idea how much more there is that we have to look at here than what you even have to talk about. 27 So, I just want to compliment you on the detail and the ease of reading and studying of this project. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we’ll move into the public testimony component of this item. So, if 29 you are here to address the Board on this item specifically, would you please raise your hand so I can get 30 a count? How many folks? Okay, okay…so what we’ll do is, we’ll give you three minutes each to step 31 up to the microphone. We’ll have both podiums active and available. When you come up, please state 32 your name and address for the record, sign in as well, and be kind. So, please, sir, go ahead. 33 ERIC SUTHERLAND: Thank Chairman, my name is Eric Sutherland, I live at 3520 Golden 34 Currant in Fort Collins and I do want to express some concern about the modification that has been 35 requested that would allow the applicant to depart from our standards for bicycle parking. That wasn’t 36 really presented in their explanation here; perhaps there might be more details that might justify that 37 modification. But, I don’t know that that’s really something that we want to be compromising 38 on…pushing bicycle parking out into the public right-of-way in this particular district of town might 39 create problems. You know, honestly, as much as I’ve heard about the Mason Bus Rapid Transit 9 1 System, I’ve never really heard of somebody coming up with an explanation about how people are going, 2 in large numbers, ride their bicycles into town and catch the BRT to go elsewhere in town, and leaving 3 their bikes in town. You know, our bike parking at times is very strained in that area, as it is right now, 4 and as we try to infill in that area it’s on. It’s pretty obvious that a building structure of this size, this 5 much square footage, it’s not hard to contemplate that a certain percentage of the square footage could be 6 dedicated to indoor bike parking for the residents there, meaning that they would not have to take up 7 bicycle parking that we might provide as an amenity…public access, public right-of-way in that regard. 8 And, I just wonder really what the rationale is there, and if it’s really justifiable in terms of the request for 9 modification that’s being made. And, really, there’s really no project that can come forward in any tax 10 increment district in this city that does not merit a little bit of concern about everybody in this community, 11 about how Fort Collins is using tax increment financing, and the burden it is placing on the taxpayers, the 12 limitations it’s placing on other taxing agencies to provide services as our population grows. I don’t 13 think, in any way, shape or form, that that topic is being given anywhere near the weight it deserves. 14 And, certainly the rationalizations that are being made, and justifications for using tax increment here, 15 there, everywhere, probably need to be reconsidered in light of what the realities are for our libraries, our 16 schools, our health district, our County social services as well. So, I’ll just throw that in a little bit on top, 17 even though it doesn’t really pertain to LUC. Thanks a lot. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, anyone else? Please step forward. 19 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Good evening Board and staff, my name is Susan Kreul-Froseth, I 20 live at 524 Spring Canyon Court. It’s hard to write and talk at the same time here. So, I have a limited 21 amount of time and I’ll try to speak quickly, thank you for the opportunity to speak, it’s an obligation too. 22 We’ve been aware of this project since January; quite frankly it’s been a convoluted process. We met 23 with the developer two or three times…two times I guess, and staff multiple times. I wish I liked this 24 project; I have to tell you, I do not…several reasons. It fails on several levels in my mind to actually feel 25 like some of the images that we saw proposed when the Mason Street Corridor came into view to the 26 citizens. Without question, it is a precedent-setting project and I think you all realize that…probably most 27 of the citizens that are even aware of the project know that it’s extremely precedent-setting. We are going 28 to see development along the Mason Street Corridor based on some of these new projects. So, I urge 29 you…you know, ask questions like, let’s see the elevation instead of looking at a perspective from the 30 corner at a worm’s eye view. Look to see what the neighbors see from the west. There were balconies 31 showing up initially in this project, very early on, and suddenly they were gone…associated with 32 economic situations the developer mentioned, just can’t simply afford those types of things. Articulation 33 is incredibly important on this project. So I urge you, ask to see the elevations…not portions of buildings, 34 not half of the building or a third of the building. It’s a mirror image, and that’s been said over and over 35 about staff…about the project. I have several pages to talk to you about and one minute left. So, I urge 36 you to also look at the modifications of standards related to landscaping. It is not nominal and 37 inconsequential, it’s very important to the neighbors that the landscaping and the setbacks are maintained. 38 If we start to let this project slide now, others will follow. When the Mason Street Corridor was proposed 39 to us, we saw vibrant city streetscapes, we saw human scale, we saw setbacks, articulation, use of good 40 materials. Quite frankly, this neighborhood meeting occurred one week ago. So my responses are based 41 on what I saw at that meeting, not at this one. So, I know the developer and the architect have made 42 strides to respond to the neighbors, but it’s a little too late in a lot of cases. We’re left with no time to 43 consider these things, thank you. 10 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. And, so you know, we did get your…your letter, and we’ve had the 2 chance to read through it…well written, so we’ll consider that as well. Anybody else? Speak to this 3 item? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record and sign in as well. 4 BRUCE FROSETH: My name is Bruce Froseth and I live at 524 Spring Canyon Court in Fort 5 Collins. Members of the Board and staff, I want to thank you for this opportunity to voice my concern 6 and opposition to this project. I may be a little disorganized tonight because our neighborhood meeting 7 was just last week. Your actions tonight will greatly influence the character and livability of this 8 neighborhood and guide future projects along the Mason Street Corridor. This project was first presented 9 to staff in the fall of 2012 with a total of 46,000 square feet and sixty-six parking spaces. Staff comments 10 were based on this proposal. According to the City-approved flow chart, there should have been a 11 neighborhood meeting after that initial submittal. The original concept with transitioning roofs has been 12 changed to what is proposed today…64,000 square feet, sixty-four units, a hundred bedrooms, sixty-four 13 rented parking spaces. This looks nothing like what was presented in the fall, it’s 18,000 square feet 14 larger. The project is called mixed-use, but it’s less than three percent other than residential. The project 15 being five stories is one of the few in the TOD and CC zoning district, and I believe requires you to use 16 some forward thinking and more scrutiny. I believe it is not compatible with the neighborhood in size, 17 character and mass, and makes no attempt to transition to the surrounding properties. I believe that stucco 18 is not the predominant façade of properties in this area. I believe even though there are no requirements 19 for TOD…parking in the TOD…thirty additional cars parking the neighborhood streets around here do 20 not contribute to compatibility. This area is already the hardest place in the city to find a parking space. I 21 believe placing trash enclosures next to the single-family residence shows a lack of concern this 22 development team has towards this neighbor. I believe projects like the Flats at the Oval and Pura Vida in 23 old Woody’s Pizza, have higher quality material and better transitioning techniques. They were both 24 larger sites but they ended up with less units than this. This project is ninety units per acre. I believe the 25 request for modifications show the developer’s lack of concern to be compatible with their surrounding 26 neighbors. I would hope that there will be a building on this site that would truly be a mixed-use and 27 contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood, providing more than a cup of coffee. I would like to finish 28 by saying I’m opposed to this dorm-like building on the Corridor and I do not believe this project will 29 help us become a world-class city. Thank you. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? Please step forward and state your name and address 31 for the record. And, for the folks that are in the back of the room that are standing, there are at least four, 32 five, six seats up here if you’d like to sit down…and I see a couple over here as well. Sir, go ahead. 33 ED SEELEY: I’m Ed Seeley, I live at 415 South Howes in Park Lane Towers about one block to 34 the west of the proposed project. I have a concern about the proposal as I understand it. I’m looking 35 forward to using the bus rapid transit system when it comes on line next year and in particular to using the 36 station just south of Mulberry. I’m concerned about the impact that MAX Flats will have on traffic along 37 Mason between Mulberry and Myrtle, but especially on an increased potential for accidents at the 38 intersection of Mason and Myrtle. If there is an accident at the intersection, getting vehicles, and even a 39 bus, out of the area with the confined lanes created by the railroad will not be easy. There may be 40 significant delays for bus service. I see this potential problem because it looks, from the project plan, as if 41 larger service vehicles such as garbage trucks would not be able to drive into the site, but will need to 42 park along Mason south of the project. Also, the intended population for MAX Flats looks to be a more 43 transient population that will have a more frequent number of move-ins and move-outs. So, I would 11 1 anticipate moving trucks needing to park along Mason to serve MAX Flats. If larger service vehicles 2 park along Mason south of the project area, the sight lines for traffic southbound on Mason and eastbound 3 on Myrtle will be impacted and would definitely increase the probability of accidents near the intersection 4 with Myrtle. I think the City of Fort Collins has an outstanding resource coming in the bus rapid transit 5 system. I hope the City of Fort Collins will ensure that no situation is permitted that would negatively 6 impact that system in this area. Thank you for the chance to comment. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Board on this issue? Please, step 8 forward, state your name and address for the record and sign in as well. 9 DAVE MICHLOVE: My name is Dave Michlove and I live at 208 West Myrtle just west of…my 10 property is adjacent west of the building. I only became informed about this project based on the 11 neighborhood meeting last week, so I’m sort of new on this but my concern is with the fencing between 12 their property and our property. Right now they are talking about a wood privacy fence. Living next to 13 King’s, the wood privacy fence that’s up currently is mine. It kept getting knocked over over and over 14 and over again by people ramming into it with their cars. I would like to see a little bit sturdier…maybe a 15 masonry type fence put between our properties that will sort of ensure a little bit less of an issue between 16 the people parking, as well as things being thrown over walls. I have two dogs that bark, I don’t really 17 want college students that will probably be inhabiting here be throwing things at my dogs. Perhaps a 18 sturdier, maybe even a higher fence would help protect some of that from occurring. I also am concerned 19 about the parking. There is no parking in that area and during the day right now, CSU pretty much fills it 20 up and you’re going to be taking away parking from the CSU students that use that as an access. Usually 21 it empties out at night, but with this building I’m sure it won’t be emptying out. So, those are basically 22 my concerns, as well as what other people have stated. Thank you. 23 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Anyone else like to address the Board 24 on this issue? Please. 25 RICHARD TARANOW: My name is Richard Taranow, I live at 2731 Granada Hills Drive. I 26 own a building directly…house directly behind the project to the south, actually next door to his. The 27 infill I’ve seen in the last twenty years in the neighborhood has been kind of low quality duplexes and 28 four-plexes that already look dated. I like the fact that someone is planning a building that will look good 29 not just for our generation, but maybe one or two after ours. It won’t look dated or need to be torn down. 30 Parking certainly is an issue, but there’s people who don’t live in a neighborhood that come and park 31 there, so I don’t see an issue why people who do live in a neighborhood…if they moved into that why 32 they couldn’t park in the street. So, again, parking situation will never be great. Seems like we want 33 more density, we want public transportation to work…this type of infill will help that. Most of the new 34 student housing that I’ve seen built recently is…had no architectural flavor like this. So, I think 35 compared to what could go in there, you know, I’d rather see this type of development than another 7-11 36 or some car lot that was previously there, and it seems like the projects this developer has brought to town 37 recently have been very successful. I have not seen any issues with…problems with any of the 38 construction…neighbors in their last few developments they’ve brought to town, so I would have to say 39 in lieu of whatever else I’ve seen planned, that this is a good use for that land. The University’s going to 40 grow, we’re going to have more density…let’s do it at least with some design flare like these folks here 41 are presenting. Thank you. 12 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? This would be your only opportunity to address the 2 Board on this issue. So, if you even think you might want to talk to the Board about this, now is your 3 time. Anyone? Okay, with that…did I hear somebody? Alright, then we will close the public testimony 4 component of this item and we’ll move into the applicant’s response to what they just heard from the 5 public testimony. And, I think that what we might do is…if the applicant could step up and, you know, 6 respond to what we heard, the Board will probably have a few questions in order to direct you back to 7 maybe some of the concerns we’ve heard from the public. One second…sorry. Okay, I’m sorry, go 8 ahead. 9 MR. BRINKMAN: You bet…so, a couple comments. On the trash trucks, they will have access 10 directly back to the dumpsters and they will be able to access the trash right there and access back out. 11 So, they will not need to access that from Mason. A couple other things…could you touch on the 12 materials real quick? 13 MR. ILLANES: Clearly, the materiality of this building is very diverse with a very hard strong 14 material that reminisces downtown, with this block and the brick. The body of the building, stucco, 15 which as you might know is not a soft material, has been used for centuries and it is a very long-lasting 16 material. It’s a hard cement board with a cement finish in front of it. And then we have a lot of detail that 17 articulates the upper floors that, in the insets, that is a siding that’s also brought up from the neighborhood 18 quality of the residual project that the previous gentleman was talking about in regard to the smaller 19 homes that you see around. 20 MR. BRINKMAN: A couple other items…it is in the TOD so there really is no parking 21 requirement and we’ve worked pretty hard, and that’s why there are the modifications, to optimize the 22 parking as well as we can. The balconies on the west side, really that came about from comments from 23 the neighbors, how they thought that would create more noise and nuisance out there, and so that’s one of 24 the reasons why we pulled those back. And then also on…you know, the predominant material. It’s just 25 so difficult to determine what the predominant material is. I’d argue in this block, it’s probably siding 26 and so that’s something that we’re trying to kind of establish a precedent for future infill, mixed-use 27 projects along the corridor. 28 MR. ILLANES: There was also a question about bicycles, and clearly we are providing a lot of 29 bicycle storage within the building. But, when you think about transit-oriented development and a bus 30 stop right there, you want to make sure that you’re also responding to the needs that bicycle parking will 31 allow to the community as a whole. Most of the parking is within the property. As you have seen, there’s 32 a couple of spaces where we’re proposing to articulate some of the use at it relates to the station itself, 33 mostly facing Mason. 34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, one thing…Jennifer, did you have…okay, we’ve probably got quite a few 35 actually. But, one thing I wanted to maybe touch on right at the beginning was…you know, I think…and 36 maybe we need to actually go through, have staff help us go through all of the requests for modification 37 here shortly, just because I think that’s probably the meat of the discussion. But, I think a point was 38 raised about, you know, as we start to, you know, build TOD projects that, you know, the need for 39 accommodating bikes for public use. And so, one of the concerns I had, or at least a question, was that in 40 particular, there’s four spaces to be, I guess, dedicated to the commercial space. And, I’m wondering if, 41 in your opinion, that’s truly adequate. And, I think that goes along the lines with what we heard the first 13 1 citizen talk about and whether or not we’re really getting enough parking for bikes in particular for the 2 public. 3 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, Seth, just to tag team that, do we have biking 4 standards as part of our transit stop plan and requirements? 5 CHAIR SMITH: And I guess maybe let’s have that discussion now, because I think maybe Emma 6 would come up…is I think it maybe illustrates a larger concept and maybe we need to punt on a couple 7 other things, but just this idea about, as MAX is developed, that the projects…what’s kind of the standard 8 for those stations for what they have provided for bike parking facilities, and how this one fits into those 9 standards…how this project fits in. 10 MR. LORSON: Okay, I was just told that there is no standards for the stations as far as for 11 developers to provide bicycle parking at a MAX station. The City will be providing three parking bike 12 racks to accommodate three bicycles at each station. As you can see here, this is the modification image 13 for bicycle parking, where the two red dots at the bottom are where they are proposing, or the applicant is 14 proposing to put ten of their required parking spaces off-site, off of their own area, that would help serve 15 both the transit station and the public realm to meet that standard. Just recently we did increase the bike 16 parking standard. Right now the standard is at one bike parking space per bedroom with sixty percent of 17 them being enclosed, or you know, inside the units, or in lockers or something like that…forty percent 18 outside. So, overall, this project is providing a hundred and six bicycle parking spaces. For our review, 19 we feel that moving them off-site is actually just nominal and inconsequential modification to the 20 standard. 21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How many of those are off-site? 22 MR. LORSON: Ten of them, and the ten are right where the two red dots are on the site plan 23 there. 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So, Seth, can I just clarify. So, they’re providing a hundred 26 and six bike parking spaces, ten of which are in the right-of-way. But, if they were to provide those 27 hundred and four required spaces on site, there would not be any bike parking in the right-of-way, except 28 for the three that you’re requiring in the station? 29 MR. LORSON: That’s correct. I’m sorry…I misspoke, the transit station will have six spaces, 30 three racks, and that’s provided by the City. 31 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And that’s in addition to the ten that’s provided through 32 this project? 33 MR. LORSON: That’s an addition to the ten, yeah. 34 CHAIR SMITH: Where would those be located? Emma, your mic’s not on…it’s good to see 35 you, it’s been a while. 36 EMMA MCARDLE: Nice to see you…Emma McArdle with Transfort by the way, for those of 37 you that don’t know. We have the three racks just to the north of the station, which is to the right of the 38 grey…the grey pad is the station for anyone that doesn’t know. 14 1 CHAIR SMITH: Emma could you use the mouse and show us with the cursor where you’re 2 talking about please? 3 MS. MCARDLE: So this is the pad for the station, the shelter is this dashed line here. Our bike 4 parking is right here and that’s six spaces. We do know that…we’ve heard from a lot of people that we’re 5 under bike parked across the board for all of our stations so any additional bike parking we can get near 6 stations is a good thing from our perspective. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, are there any plans or processes in order to bump that up if you’ve heard 8 that it’s under parked? 9 MS. MCARDLE: Yes, we are planning to get a project underway this year to address additional 10 bike parking throughout the corridor. That’s on our work plan, but we haven’t started it yet. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. I mean I guess just comment aside from this proposal is that, you 12 know, with MAX we have an opportunity to do something pretty great, and I’d like to see us plan for 13 greatness. I guarantee three to six bikes is not going to be adequate…not even close. Okay, so what other 14 questions do we have along these lines? Go ahead Jennifer. 15 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m sure it’s on here somewhere, and I’ve been over these 16 and I can’t find it, but on the bikes that are going to be up next to the building, that are going to be 17 protruding out onto the sidewalk….how far are they going to protrude out into that space? 18 MR. ILLANES: The sidewalk is eight foot in width and the bicycles are outside of that width, but 19 within, or inside, of the right-of-way. If you follow the cursor please…so you see in the indent right there 20 as well as here, right? So, the bicycles are placed that the wheel is going to project just a little farther than 21 this blue line, but the sidewalk width…you can see it there. 22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How deep is that indentation for bikes? 23 MR. ILLANES: Six feet. 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m sorry? 25 MR. ILLANES: Six feet. 26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Six feet, okay, thank you. 27 CHAIR SMITH: I guess a real quick question…I may have missed this, but where you are 28 requesting to place bike racks in the right-of-way, what material will they be sitting on? Is that concrete? 29 So it’ll be in the tree lawn but it’ll be on a concrete pad? 30 MR. ILLANES: Yes, it’s a continuation of the material used for the sidewalk. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you. 32 MR. BRINKMAN: If I can add, we did some very similar at Flats at the Oval. So, if you go by 33 Laurel and Howes, there’s the same attribute there. 34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, what other questions do we have right now? 35 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I have a question about the stucco. So, this is stucco board, 36 not stucco. Is that correct? 15 1 MR. ILLANES: It’s a hand-applied stucco system that is applied in coats. It’s the traditional 2 stucco that’s been used forever, it’s not Dryvit, which is a material applied to foam. 3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Right, but is it like the stucco board that’s applied to the wall 4 or is it actual stucco? 5 MR. ILLANES: No, it’s hand-applied on the wall. 6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, go ahead. 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was wondering if you could also respond to the citizen 9 testimony questioning the landscaping and setback modification? 10 MR. ILLANES: In regards to landscaping, as you can see, there is a…let me change seats okay? 11 As you heard, the parking is not required, but clearly it was a great amenity to also bring at least one 12 parking space per unit. As the parking is organized around the building, you saw that most of it is 13 underneath the building. And, the spaces that are along the property lines that are in a 14 diagonal…currently, the landscaping is maintained as a straight line, and that width is where the 15 requirement is asked for. The building along all the entire perimeter has landscaping. I don’t think we 16 have a landscape plan here with us, but one of the things that is happening is that we are using a lot of 17 trees along the street façades. Now, what you saw in regards to the compact spaces…the compact spaces 18 are the ones that are located underneath the building for the most part. 19 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Just…not to design your building for you, but I’m 20 assuming that there’s not enough room to do the full-size parking within the building and to make those 21 spaces compact to have more of a buffer between your property and the single-family out in the parking 22 lot? 23 MR. ILLANES: Full-size spaces, they will not fit here, right. 24 MR. BRINKMAN: And, if I could say, that’s the number one concern we had from all the 25 neighbors is parking. So, we tried to optimize it as best as we could. 26 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, do you have more questions…follow-up on that? Jennifer, go ahead. 27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I do, and maybe this is for staff, I don’t know. I just am 28 wondering why the neighborhood meeting was so late in the process…that’s kind of an unusual place to 29 have… 30 LAURIE KADRICH: I think I can help with that since Seth has to switch seats there. This was 31 one of the projects that got caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the 32 Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might 33 remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, 34 instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the 35 developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the 36 discussion that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the 37 developer proceeded ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it 38 included a definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change 39 made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we 16 1 discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The developer 2 and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on the timeline that 3 they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of the 4 neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held. And, I’d invite Paul to correct me if I’ve 5 erred in this description. 6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, do we have any…what is our definition for mixed-use? 7 Is there any kind of a percentage of what you have to have of each to have it be considered mixed-use? 8 MS. KADRICH: Not yet…it’s one of the topics that’s come up by staff and by the Planning and 9 Zoning Board members that we would consider at a later date in defining whether there needs to be more 10 than the idea if there’s more than one type of use, does it have to be a certain percent of the project, or 11 some other way to define mixed-use. But, currently, this project would qualify under the Land Use Code 12 definition. 13 CHAIR SMITH: What other questions do we have? 14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who 15 participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things 16 about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the 17 middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job. 18 CHAIR SMITH: True…alright, what other questions do we have for staff or the applicant at this 19 time? John? Okay…you know I think it’d be important for us to do…maybe, Seth, if you could do this. 20 Could you lead us through the requests for modification please? 21 MR. LORSON: Yeah, absolutely. So, the first request for a modification is a reduction in the 22 parking lot landscaping. The Land Use Code requires six percent of interior parking area to be 23 landscaped, which would be five hundred and five square feet in this case. What they’re doing, is they’re 24 providing two hundred and twenty-four square feet, which would be 2.7 percent. Staff has made a 25 determination that it meets the standard in the modification Section 2.8, that the modification is not 26 detrimental to the public good and that the standard divergence is not detrimental…except in a nominal 27 and inconsequential way. What this is really a result of, as you heard the applicant say, is that they’re 28 trying to get one parking spot per unit. So, what…as you know, this is a TOD overlay zone, and there are 29 no parking requirements, there’s no parking minimum. So, they could take out a parking spot and meet 30 their interior landscape requirement, but then they’d have to take out a parking spot which could possibly 31 impose more parking on public streets in the neighborhood, which, as you know, we’ve heard recently is 32 a concern for the community. 33 The second one is to provide off-site bicycle parking to meet their standard. I think we’ve 34 already gone over this well enough. 35 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, could you go back real quick, just on B…just go through the rationale. 36 MR. LORSON: Okay, yeah, absolutely. The rationale for the modification of standard is that, for 37 all intents and purposes, they’re providing the adequate amount of parking spaces. And, honestly, there’s 38 a section in the Code that comes right after this that talks about alternative compliance. I think this would 39 actually have met the alternative compliance a lot better than a modification of standard, although they 40 had requested a modification of standard so we processed it as such. But, the alternative way to comply 17 1 to this would be to provide the parking in the public right-of-way. The reason it cannot be considered 2 towards the standard is because they have to get a revocable permit, and at any time the City could revoke 3 their ability to have that parking there and then they would no longer have the adequate amount of 4 parking spaces. Nevertheless, staff considers the request to be not detrimental to the public good and that 5 the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, continue…sorry. 7 MR. LORSON: You’re welcome. The third modification is a reduction in the parking lot setback 8 from five feet, which is what the standard requires, to four feet two inches. This is because what they are 9 doing is providing…trying to provide at least one parking spot per dwelling unit. Now, without that ten 10 inch difference, they wouldn’t have adequate space for the drive aisle to provide that entire row of 11 parking that you can see along the west side of the property. So, staff finds that it actually meets two 12 elements of the modification standards. The first one is that it’s not detrimental to the public good and it 13 doesn’t diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential way, being ten inches. 14 And that also it will result in a substantial benefit for the City, being that they wouldn’t be able to do the 15 project and provide the parking without having that drive aisle and without having that extra ten inches. 16 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. Yes, hang on, Jennifer, go ahead. 17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, where we’re losing the spaces on the west side…I’m 18 looking at the landscape plan now…so it’s on the west side along there, that’s where it’s going from five 19 to 4.2? 20 MR. LORSON: That’s correct. 21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, and that’s also where the landscaping which is meant 22 to be a buffer from the neighbors…that’s where we’re losing landscaping as well? 23 MR. LORSON: Not necessarily. Basically what we’re talking about losing the landscaping is 24 internal landscaping. The buffer that you’re talking about, the setback…the five foot setback along the 25 west, is perimeter landscaping in the Land Use Code. What also the Land Use Code requires is the 26 interior…interior landscaping, which is the paved area. And that area requires six percent of that paved 27 area to have landscaping inside it to soften the actual parking lot itself. 28 BOARDMEMBER KIRPATRICK: I just wanted to ask about that, going back to modification 29 A…the intent of that is sort of for that perception of safety and to soften it so that you’re not just in a 30 concrete jungle, right? I know that… 31 MR. LORSON: The interior landscaping? Correct. 32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I know that our requirement is for six percent surface. If 33 they were to do, say those green walls again on that first floor in the parking lot, would that…that 34 wouldn’t still count, right, towards the six percent standard? 35 MR. LORSON: No, we have very specific diagrams in the Land Use Code that it would have to 36 actually be an area between parking spaces. 37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think maybe that’s an area that we could look at in the 38 future for infill sites. 39 MR. LORSON: We will, thank you. 18 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Sorry, I didn’t quite finish. So, we’re not losing…by losing 2 the eight inches between the west boundary and the parking lot, we’re not losing any of the landscaping 3 along there that’s meant to buffer between…is that correct? 4 MR. LORSON: As proposed, I haven’t seen any landscape lost because of the ten inches. I think 5 there would be , obviously less impervious area due to the ten inches, but as far as the area that would 6 buffer from the neighbors, I don’t know how much difference that ten inches would make. They are 7 providing a six-foot privacy fence right there on the property line. 8 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, go ahead. 10 MR. LORSON: Thank you. The final modification is an increase in the percentage of compact 11 parking spaces. The Code requires a maximum of forty percent compact parking spaces, and the 12 applicant is providing fifty-eight percent compact parking spaces. Staff feels like this is not detrimental 13 to the public good and doesn’t diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential 14 way, and this is because it’s internal to the site. It’s inside their own parking garage. This is their own, 15 private parking and it’s another symptom of trying to put more parking in where they aren’t required to do 16 parking by the Land Use Code anyway. And so, staff feels that it meets the standards for modification of 17 standard. Thank you. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, does the Board fully understand the four requests for modification? Do 19 you have any questions of staff about those? Trying to break this into some pieces that we can manage 20 and move forward on. Okay, alright if we understand that then go ahead…any other questions? We need 21 to be able to understand where we’re going. Kristin, go ahead. 22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Seth, can I ask just one more clarifying question? I read 23 somewhere, but I can’t find it now…so there was a dedication of right-of-way on Mulberry, is that right? 24 Of seven and a half feet for the right-of-way that Mulberry will need for their ultimate street 25 improvements? My question is, when and if that gets improved, how will that be changing the Mulberry 26 side? I think that you said that perhaps…do we get rid of that street tree lawn or what would happen? 27 MR. LORSON: The applicant is prepared to speak to that. 28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect. 29 MR. BRINKMAN: So, Kristin, I think what you’re asking is seven and a half foot wide right-of- 30 way right here? So that’s for potential ultimate Mulberry expansion. And, so the potential road would go 31 to that southern edge. 32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. 33 CHAIR SMITH: I’ve got a question for the applicant. The amount of bike spaces being provided 34 in each of the dwelling units…it’s one per unit, is that correct? And that’s even in the units that have 35 more than one bedroom? 36 MR. BRINKMAN: No, it’s one per bed. 37 CHAIR SMITH: It is one per bed? 19 1 MR. BRINKMAN: And what we’ve found…that in comparable projects, is that a lot of times, 2 you probably see it around town, that their bikes are worth more than their cars so they end up taking 3 them through the elevator up into their room. So, I think, practically speaking, a lot of the bikes will be in 4 the rooms and then that should leave adequate bike parking on ground level in our mind. 5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Time to deliberate? Jennifer? We’re 6 all looking to you. Okay, I think that what our process would be is that we would take each one of the 7 modification requests and knock those down one by one, get a decision, and then we can move on to the 8 overall PDP. How do you all feel about that? 9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, you’re thinking about getting to compatibility last? Is 10 that where you’re wanting that to be? 11 CHAIR SMITH: I think so. Yeah, I think it makes sense. Yeah, if you’d like to…sure. 12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I make a motion to approve the MAX Flats project proposal, 13 number PDP 120034, along with the proposed modifications which are not detrimental to the public good, 14 and to the…and the proposed modifications A, B, C, and D which are nominal and inconsequential. 15 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, the City Council has, in the past, 16 requested we take each modification by a separate vote, and then finally the PDP, again, by a separate 17 vote. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. I think…let’s do that if that’s alright with you, John, is let’s 19 go…if you want to make a motion toward one of the… 20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll make the same motion, we’ll just go with modification 21 number A. 22 CHAIR SMITH: And go through your findings real quick too, the…your two…one’s the public 23 good and then the second one is… 24 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll amend that then to say…make a motion to approve the 25 MAX Flats project proposal number PDP 120034 along with the proposed modification A which is not 26 detrimental to the public good, and the proposals…the modifications which are nominal and 27 inconsequential. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so I think you got the whole PDP in that one as well. So, what I want to 29 do is try to get just one at a time. 30 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Maybe we should deliberate a little bit before we jump to 31 that, I don’t know that I’m really quite ready for… 32 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s hear your thoughts. 33 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: There is a motion on the table at the moment, I don’t 34 know if you want to try to have that motion withdrawn, or failed by a lack of a second. 35 CHAIR SMITH: It sounds like… 36 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Failed by a lack of a second? Okay. 20 1 CHAIR SMITH: Actually I think we’ll deliberate a little bit and then we’ll go each modification 2 one by one, the four, and then if we get all four of them then we’ll hit the PDP, if we’re in agreement. Go 3 ahead, Jennifer, I interrupted you. 4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, I’m struggling with this because I feel like a lot of the 5 reason for the modifications is that…and we do want density on Mason Corridor, but this just seems to be 6 stuffing too big a project for…onto this piece of property to me, which means we’re having to have 7 modifications where we’re not getting the amount of buffering that we should have between the houses 8 that are already there. I’m a little concerned…not really sure how long a bike is…whether six feet is 9 going to fit or whether it’s going to protrude really out into the right-of-way where it’s going to be a 10 constant problem for pedestrians, which is another one of our big things. I love that there’s parking, 11 because that’s one of my hot buttons, even though it’s not necessary…or at this point, it’s not required in 12 the TOD. But then my other hot button is that we need to be getting the services in the mixed-use that I 13 don’t really think we’re getting here, but I don’t think that’s something I can really hang my hat on 14 tonight because we haven’t gone there. So, that’s my struggling…the increased percentage of compact 15 parking spaces, I don’t think that has really much of an impact on the public. And the reduction in the 16 parking lot landscaping, the interior, doesn’t have…doesn’t really have any impact on the public either, 17 but the buffering between already existing areas and the fact that we have such a small amount of space 18 between the older places that are in here and the parking lot and all of that, so that’s…that’s where I’m 19 going. I’d like to hear what everybody else is thinking. 20 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin? John? Either one? 21 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: If I look through them one by one, the parking lot interior 22 landscaping, I would like to see green walls or something in the parking lot because I think it would be 23 important from an overall aesthetics feel; however, we don’t have a requirement to make you do that, and 24 so that would be something that I would like to see. But, I think that the modification of standard, given 25 the limitations for the infill site, makes sense. For the bike facilities, I was initially opposed to them, but I 26 hadn’t understood that those wouldn’t be spaces in the right-of-way anyway, and so I do think that it’s a 27 benefit to have those extra spaces in the right-of-way and I definitely agree that I think many students, or 28 other people who might be living there, will be parking their bikes within their units anyway. For the 29 parking lot setback, I struggle with that a little bit, but I also think that your site is a hundred feet wide, 30 and that is just tricky. And so I think that the buffering that is available is…it’s a relatively small change 31 in setback and I would wonder, Jennifer, if these apartment buildings, because they’re situated so far back 32 on their lot, would be conforming with our setback standards anyway for side yard. My guess would be 33 that they’re…that they’re too close anyway. And then for the last one, for the parking stall dimension, I 34 think that’s no problem. I feel like I could usually fit in a compact spot, even though I technically don’t 35 drive a compact car, so I think that’s fine. 36 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, Kristin, do you not feel like it’s going to be a problem 37 with the bikes protruding out into the… 38 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I don’t…if they’re saying that there’s an eight foot 39 sidewalk in addition to where those wheels are coming out, I think it would be…you would have to be 40 like me and travelling with kids on a bike trailer, and I doubt there will be many of those in this particular 41 sense. 21 1 CHAIR SMITH: Any other comments? Alright, generally I’m going to say that, you know, 2 we’ve been faced with more and more of these types of projects and it’s been a very active…I’d say now 3 two years when it comes to projects in the TOD of an urban flare, and you know, I think that our Board 4 has recognized the need to have continuous improvement in the way that we are actually implementing 5 urban style development in the TOD to be able to support BRT and some other larger goals in our comp 6 plan. And, so, you know, we’ve said that this year, quickly, we’re going to revisit TOD and the 7 implementation, we’re going to have discussions about the policies, and look forward to making, you 8 know, some recommendations to Council about how it’s implementing. You know, in that process I think 9 that we’re finding, by specific projects, that we could and should have more available creative mitigating 10 factors for some of the requests for modification. For instance, you’re talking about a green wall…that 11 might make a request for a modification seem to be a little bit better. And, I think that the applicant has 12 met the standards, they’ve done a…you know a fairly creative project with coming in, you know, asking 13 for…well, we’re asking for this modification but this is what we gain as the community and in the project 14 by, you know, not just doing a project that has zero parking for instance…big issues. And, to be able to 15 say, if you want the parking, we’re going to have to give up on some of these little pieces, but because 16 they’re nominal and inconsequential and they’re not against the public good, that they do meet the letter 17 of law when it comes to the technicality of how you request a modification to a standard. So, I 18 would…you know I think that they’ve done a good job of it. 19 I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we had some 20 neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think 21 that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and 22 going forward, the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board 23 and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the right direction. I would say that, you know…the 24 project…I like what the applicant’s team has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it. 25 This is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason 26 Corridor come to life and be functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason, 27 and even across the street, to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very 28 eclectic architecture in that neighborhood…very eclectic. 29 I would just…one thing I want to be able to say is that I’m…I am definitely concerned about, you 30 know, as we start to really develop projects like this along the corridor from north to south, we have 31 plenty of bike parking. And I think that’s something that we’ve also discovered in this process is 32 that…do we have enough bike parking being provided. And so, I think if somebody wants to start 33 making some motions on the four requests, I’m supportive of all four of them and based on the findings 34 that the staff has presented. 35 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just want to add a general comment as well. I was really 36 glad to see your changes in material selection and even though we don’t have any purview over that in the 37 Land Use Code standards, other than the mix and some of the articulation. When I first looked at it, I did 38 definitely agree with some of the neighborhood concerns that it felt like it wasn’t quite of the same 39 standard and quality that you guys have been building elsewhere and other developers have, and I think 40 the brick on that north side definitely helps with the transition from downtown where you see more of it, 41 and I was really, really glad to see the changes that you guys made. It definitely placated some of the 42 concerns that I have that we’re not allowed to really talk about, but I was really glad to see them. 22 1 CHAIR SMITH: Especially as we urbanize that…you know, if we’re going to be talking about 2 activated sidewalks, pedestrian activity, design is going to become more important than it ever has been in 3 this community and materials are going to drive a lot of that. Jennifer, go ahead. 4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I guess the concern that I’m having as we see these projects 5 come in…it’s another concern that we might want to put on our work program, is…I’m pretty much of a 6 neighborhood advocate, and I think while we are going to see huge changes along Mason Corridor, I 7 think it’s really important that we protect the folks and the neighborhoods that are already there. So, I 8 would really like to be able to look at ways and to have ways that we can…that we can do that better than 9 we are doing it. This to me is, partially because…and I think you’re right Kristin, partially because the 10 neighbors are so close in to the property line. But, I think we need to maybe find some creative ways and 11 some kind of a requirement or a place where we can make sure that we aren’t intruding so much onto the 12 neighborhoods that we lose the neighborhoods that we have now in…especially in the Old Town area, but 13 really it’s going to impact all along the Mason Corridor. So, I really think we need to come up with some 14 ways to do that better than we are doing it now. 15 CHAIR SMITH: If…one thing for the applicant…if…good fences make good neighbors, then for 16 Mr. Michlove’s concern about the wood fence…that’ll be your maintenance project? 17 MR. BRINKMAN: Correct, yep. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Was it going to be a double fence if there’s already a fence 20 there? Is that one coming down, how is that going to work? 21 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, that would be coming down and we’d be building a new fence. 22 MR. MICHLOVE: Excuse me, that’s my fence and I don’t necessarily want to take it down. 23 MR. BRINKMAN: We could put a double fence if he wants to keep that fence up, that’s fine. 24 CHAIR SMITH: We’ll trust that perhaps you would work with him outside of this…okay. 25 Let’s…go ahead, Kristin. 26 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was just going to say, Jennifer, I definitely agree. I think 27 that our standards on what we expect from the staff and the applicant really focus heavily on that big 28 pedestrian front, and not necessarily on the back side of the house, which is equally important. That’s 29 what most of the neighborhood is looking at from blocks and blocks away. And so I definitely think we 30 could institute some process improvements on that end. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, I would entertain some motions. 32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for parking 33 lot interior landscaping, 3.2.1(E)(5) because it is not detrimental to the public good and it’s nominal and 34 inconsequential. Paul, what do I have to add? 35 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: You have to add how come it’s nominal and 36 inconsequential. 23 1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because within the interior of the parking lot, the site is so 2 constrained there already…it’s such a small modification for the landscape interior and the benefit 3 exceeds the…oh shoot…sure, the benefit exceeds the detriment. 4 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Alright, so moved. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? 5 Paul, are you okay with that? Okay, okay. Any discussion? Roll call, please? 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 11 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 13 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, let’s move on to the second one. 14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for bicycle 15 facilities 3.2.2(C)(4) because it is not detrimental to the public good, nominal and inconsequential 16 because providing bike facilities in the public right-of-way is a larger community benefit than having 17 them housed exclusively on the property. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Paul? Any discussion? Jennifer? No? Okay, roll call, please. 19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 26 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the second modification request has been approved. On to the 27 third one, please. 28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the parking lot setback 3.2.2(J) because 29 it is not detrimental to the public good and the parking lot setback modification is truly nominal and 30 inconsequential when taken into consideration that the fact that the site is only a hundred feet in width and 31 it’s providing as much buffer as possible while accommodating the benefit of parking on the site. 32 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Further discussion? Jennifer? 33 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I can’t support this one. I just am feeling like it’s just one 34 step too far for me, and I really think that it’s setting a precedent to be able to…all of these sites are going 35 to be pretty narrow along here and I think, for me, that’s where we have to hold tight so I can’t support it. 24 1 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, further discussion? Roll call please. 2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No. 4 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 5 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 9 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the third request for modification has passed. On to the fourth 10 one, please. 11 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification for standard to parking 12 stall dimensions 3.2.2(L) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the benefit of having 13 increased parking in this district is worthwhile of having an increase in compact cars. 14 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Is that based upon nominal and inconsequential 15 analysis, equal to or better than, or what? 16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Equal to or better than, we’ll change it up. 17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Second. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any further discussion? 19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: On the equal to or better than standard, the language 20 of the Code is actually that it advances the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a 21 plan which complies with the standard, just so you’re clear on what… 22 CHAIR SMITH: I would recommend making a modification to the motion to be based on 23 nominal and inconsequential as opposed to equal or better than. 24 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Okay. 25 CHAIR SMITH: And who was the second? Were you the second? So first and…they both have 26 to be agreeable? Are you both? 27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, that’s fine. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so the motion has been modified. Further discussion? Roll call please. 29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 32 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 34 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 25 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 2 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright so all four requests to modify standards have been approved. 3 Anybody want to make a motion on the overall PDP? 4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: As you can tell, our A-tem for making motions is out 5 tonight. I move to approve the MAX Flats PDP Number 120034 and in support of my motion, I adopt the 6 findings of fact and conclusion as contained on page nine of the staff report. 7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And page ten? 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And page ten, sorry. 9 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Actually, as far as the PDP is concerned, I think the 10 findings for it are really E, F, and G on page ten. The rest of those pertain to the modification of 11 standards. 12 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect, I adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as 13 contained in E through G on page ten of the staff report. Thank you Paul. 14 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Kristin, you did a good job with making the motions. As a lot of folks 15 here know, one of our members recently graduated to the City Council, and he had been doing motions 16 for a few years. But, you did a good job, thank you for doing it. Any other discussion? Roll call please. 17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 18 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 24 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, so MAX Flats PDP 120034 with four requests for modification 25 has been passed. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 26 ATTACHMENT 6 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council June 4, 2013 1 Project Appeal Development of the Max Flats, Plan Seth Lorson, City Planner 2 Background: Site Location Mulberry Street Mason Street MAX - Mulberry Station 3 Project Background • 0.7 acre site • 5 stories/ 63,900 square feet • 64 Units / 100 bedrooms • 1 Retail Unit (1,439 square feet) • 4 Modifications of Standards 4 Planning and Zoning Board Action The Project Board Development voted 4 - Plan. 0 to approve the Max Flats In Development support of Plan, its motion the Board to approve adopted the the findings Project of the fact staff and report. conclusions as contained on page 9 of 5 Appellant Allegation Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence that was Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. “It project was was an error required that to staff be did reviewed not inform as a type the applicant 2.” that this At “This the was Planning one and of the Zoning projects Board caught (P&Z) in Hearing the middle staff stated, of the transition.we had ..a around mixed-use the development threshold was and the about discussion multi-family that development…” (Page 15, Line 30 of Verbatim Transcript) 6 Appellant Allegation Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence that was Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.” The were P&presented. Z Board did not discuss the manner in which images 7 Appellant Allegation Failure to conduct a fair hearing because it substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application. “The comments neighbors to the did not board have and a reasonable indeed were period unaware of time to and get uninformed review this project by staff at that all or the specifically work session was taking was planned place the to next day.” The your P&late Z neighborhood Board stated, “…for meeting the was citizens because who we’ve participated been that changing 16, Line 14 all – sorts 23 of of Verbatim things about Transcript) our process lately…” (Page 8 Appellant Allegation Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. “This project fails to meet compatibility standards.” The variation P&Z in Board massing. did not discuss compatibility based on the 9 Appellant Allegation Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. “Lesser neighborhood.quality ” materials are used on the facades facing the The the façade P&Z Board facing did the not neighborhood. discuss the building materials used on 10 Appellant Allegation Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. “The physical project and visual detracts barrier from in its the block-character type form.by ” setting up a The done P&to Z design Board a stated, good project…” “I like what (page the 21, applicant’s line 24 – team 28 of has the Verbatim Transcript). 11 Appellant Allegation Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. “This vocabulary building's of architectural repetitive character elements, has lacking taken on in an detailing overall superimposed mass.” upon an overwhelming scale and building The P&Z Board did not discuss the variation in massing. 12 The considered Municipal when Code offered allows by for City new staff evidence or parties-to be in- interest Councilmembers in response at the to questions hearing. presented by Staff allegations is prepared on appeal to answer if asked questions by Councilmembers. regarding the 13 Questions for Council I. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading? 14 Questions for Council II. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application? 15 Questions for Council III. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? DATE: June 4, 2013 STAFF: Helen Matson Craig Foreman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right-of-Way and City-Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass-River District Block One Mixed Use Development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Encompass – River District Block One Mixed Use Development (“Encompass”) is a mixed use development at 418 Linden Street consisting of office space, residential space and a restaurant. The property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC (“LB LLC”). Several easements are required for this project. These easement interests are needed for improvements in the right-of-way, bank stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Encompass is a mixed use development at 418 Linden consisting of one building with two floors of office space, two floors of apartments (12 units) and a restaurant. The first floor of this building has a walk-way to the rear of the lot. The O’Neil family is developing the property. Their software company, Encompass Technologies will occupy the second floor. The property is held in the name of Linden Bridges LLC. Encompass looked at plans to relocate to a larger space and instead chose to develop a new office as part of a mixed- use development as a long-term investment in downtown Fort Collins. The site at 418 Linden provides a great opportunity for Encompass to create a vibrant mixed-use development that connects downtown Fort Collins to the Cache la Poudre River. This project embodies the character and vision of the City Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the 2001 Poudre River Master Plan, and the R-D-R zone district for high quality redevelopment in downtown with river interface that is envisioned for the Downtown River Redevelopment District. Easements Requested by Encompass: The properties affected by these requests include the property between the development site and the Poudre River. The City owns the top of the bank, which was acquired 30 years ago for a recreational trail, the river bank and the land under the river. In the end, the trail was constructed on the other side of the River and the City will not utilize this site as a trail in the future. The City property has not been maintained for years. All easement requests are shown on the Easement Exhibit, Attachment 2. Permanent Non-Exclusive Encroachment Easement (shown in green on Easement Exhibit): This easement would be made up of several easement areas located in the right of way. Since permanent improvements are being constructed in the right-of-way, it is appropriate to grant a permanent easement instead of a revocable permit. Encompass will have a permanent right to use these improvements in perpetuity. The City cannot cancel or terminate this easement; only Encompass could request to have this easement vacated. If the City determined it needed the land under the improvements, it would need to enter into negotiations with the owner to purchase this easement interest. In the Easement Agreement, Encompass will be required to carry property and liability insurance and will need to have the City added as additional insured. There is a significant change in grade along Linden Street. This creates the need for an upper and lower sidewalk similar to properties downtown. Thus some of the permanent features requiring easements are a ramp, stairs and a planter box. In addition, Encompass has requested an outdoor deck along Linden Street for the restaurant. The restaurant will also have two decks on their property with a river view. Having the deck along Linden Street is a key urban design element. June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 28 Permanent Non-Exclusive Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement (shown in yellow on Easement Exhibit): This easement abuts the development site and includes a strip of land from the top of the river bank, to the water’s edge. The river bank needs to be stabilized and this project plans include reconstruction approximately 160 feet of the river bank to meet the design criteria for a 100 year flood event. Included with the bank stabilization are two decorative retaining walls. Additional improvements are being completed by Encompass along the bank as per the City’s Poudre River Enhancement Plan. This work is a benefit to both the development and the City by providing additional stabilization of the banks and improved scour protection for the Linden Street bridge. Encompass will complete all the construction. When the work is complete and approved by Stormwater Utilities, the City will repay Encompass for river enhancement work that benefits the City from a combination of Stormwater Funds and Bridge Engineering Funds. As per the Land Use Code, the project is required to provide a continuous buffer and a walking path along the top of the bank. It is planned to build the buffer and path on the development site and the City-owned property. The easement grants Encompass access for the path and its users. Encompass will maintain all improvements located in this easement area, with the exception of the bridge protection. After acceptance of the work by the City, the City will maintain the bridge protection. The City will not perform maintenance on the trail in the easement area. The City’s public trail is on the other side of the River. Permanent Non-Exclusive Drainage Easement (shown in yellow and outlined in red on Easement Exhibit); Encompass is requesting a permanent 20-foot wide drainage easement to carry their development flows, as well as the flows from the property to the south, from their water quality pond, in an eighteen-inch pipe under the City’s property to the Poudre River. This easement location is in part of the Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement, but we requested a separate legal description for this use. Temporary Construction Easement (shown on Temporary Easement Exhibit): The above easement gives Encompass the right to do their bank stabilization work; however, they need to be able to access the bank from the Poudre River. In order to complete work in the River, a Floodplain Use Permit is required. Encompass has met with the Floodplain Administrator on site and an access area has been identified. The preferred access point goes through the Encompass site and goes through a break in trees on the City property to access the River. This area is shown on the Temporary Easement Exhibit, Attachment 3. There will be very minimal disturbance in the river bed. The banks will only be disturbed in the areas of the Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. All disturbed areas along construction access from top of bank to the River shall be revegetated per approved landscape plans. The area of the Temporary Construction Easement extends upriver under the bridge and adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. Encompass will construct a temporary upstream and downstream coffer dam and pump in the Temporary Construction Easement area. Downstream there is an area where the river is separated by a stretch of land. The temporary coffer dam will divert the River to the eastern side of the land and they will also install a pump in low point discharge on other side of island. The duration of the requested Temporary Construction Easement will start when our Easement Agreement is signed and will continue to December 31, 2014. The work is planned to be in intervals and this is not a consecutive time period. While the Temporary Construction Easement does give them permission to enter our property, they will also need a current Floodplain Use Permit to access the Temporary Construction Easement area. At the meeting held in May with Stormwater staff, it was determined that work in the River cannot commence until the end of September of 2013 due to the high river conditions this year. Permanent Non-Exclusive Landscape Easement (shown in orange on the Easement Exhibit): Encompass has requested a Non-Exclusive Permanent Landscape Easement to landscape a 2,206 square-foot area adjacent to their property to improve the view for their project. The strip of land is southeast of the Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement area and goes to the current top of bank. This area is currently not maintained and does not contain much vegetation. Encompass submitted a landscape plan during the approval process of the development. This landscape plan was approved and determined to meet the criteria of the Land Use Code 4.17 – River Landscape Buffers. June 4, 2013 -3- ITEM 28 Revocable Permit (shown in purple on the Easement Exhibit): Encompass has requested the right to come into the large purple shaded area on the Easement Exhibit to trim the existing trees. The trees are not well maintained and contain numerous dead branches. Encompass wants to trim these trees to improve the view of the river to users of the development. The requested Revocable Permit is for twenty (20) years unless revoked sooner, and will allow trimming of trees, but not tree removal. Along with the Revocable Permit, Encompass must meet with the Forestry Department to agree on which trees can be trimmed. Once Encompass gets the official permission from Forestry, the tree company doing the trimming will need to obtain a permit from Forestry to do the actual trimming. In addition, since this is in a floodplain, Encompass will be required to obtain a Floodplain Use Permit for each time they do any trimming activities. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Encroachment Easements. These easements are located in the right of way. Currently the City does not have an adequate policy in place on how to process or value permanent easements in the public right of way. Encroachment Permits are charged $10/year and permanent easements on City-owned properties are compensated at fair market value. Staff will be bringing an Ordinance to Council in the next few months with a recommendation on how to process and value easements in the right of way. Until a policy is established, compensation will be based on fair market value. Staff has set a value for the encroachment easements requested. Values on Linden Street have increased dramatically over the last two years. The price per square foot assigned for these easements is an average of the last two properties sold. That value is $19.50 per square foot. The encroachment easements for the stairs with handrails and the ramp will typically be used not only for occupants or customers of Encompass, but could also be used by the general public. For this reason, the easement percentage of value is 50% and the easement value for these areas is $5,099.00. The easement percentage of value for the encroachment easement for the outdoor patio deck is 75%. That is because the general public will not have any use in this area unless they are customers of the restaurant. The easement value for the patio deck is $8,350.00, or $13,449.00 for both areas. Developer will be charged $13,449.00 for the Encroachment Easement; however, if the City Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a policy for granting of easements in the City’s rights of way, including charges therefor, Encompass will instead pay compensation for the Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449.00. Compensation for the Encroachment Easement is not due until the new policy is adopted or December 31, 2013. Other Easements: The City’s practice is to charge for easements on estimated market value. Market values for properties are estimated on a wide range of criteria including, the zoning, topography, physical constraints and overall use of the property. After considering the above criteria and consulting with area appraisers, staff set the market value for the City parcels at $5,000 per acre. It is difficult to set a value for properties within floodplains because there are not many comparable sales. These properties are usually purchased by government entities for preservation. The appraisers compared these properties to highly restricted conservation easement properties. The values recommended by the appraisers range from $3,500 to $5,000/acre. The exception is in the Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. Approximately half of its area is in the FEMA Moderate Risk Floodplain. Generally there is not a deduction for the developable value because it is relatively inexpensive to cure. This small area would not be developable on its own; however, since this area is being used to enhance the development of the adjacent property, the value of this area would be about 50% of developable market value, or $10 per square foot. Using this data, staff has determined a value of $17,675.00 for the Construction, Access, Maintenance Easement and the Drainage Easement, the Landscape Easement, the Temporary Construction Easement, and the Revocable Permit. It is staff’s recommendation that we do not charge Encompass for these easements because the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping improvements and tree trimming provide benefits to the City that exceed the value of the easements. June 4, 2013 -4- ITEM 28 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff from Parks and Utilities have not identified any concerns. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Easement Exhibit 3. Temporary Easement Exhibit EASEMENTS EXHIBIT Attachment 2 TEMPORARY EASEMENT EXHIBIT Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF FOUR EASEMENTS, A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND A REVOCABLE PERMIT ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO LINDEN BRIDGES LLC FOR THE ENCOMPASS-RIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is the owner of the right-of-way for Linden Street between Willow Street and the Poudre River (the “City Right-of-Way”); and WHEREAS, the City is also the owner of a parcel of real property located adjacent to and under the Poudre River as described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “River Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City Right-of-Way and the River Parcel are referred to herein as the “City Property”; and WHEREAS, Linden Bridges LLC (the “Developer”) is the owner of a parcel of real property located at 418 Linden Street, adjacent to the City Property (the “Developer’s Property”); and WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed a mixed-use development to be constructed on the Developer’s Property, which would consist of one building with two floors of office space, two floors of apartments, and a restaurant (the “Development”); and WHEREAS, to facilitate the Development, the Developer has requested four permanent non- exclusive easements on the City Property, as follows: • an encroachment easement in the City Right-of-Way for a ramp, stairs, a planter box, a deck, and upstairs balconies as described on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Easement”); • a construction, access and maintenance easement on the River Parcel as described on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Access Easement”); • a drainage easement on the River Parcel for drainage from the Developer’s Property to the Poudre River as described on Exhibit “D”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Drainage Easement”); and • a landscape easement on the River Parcel as described on Exhibit “E”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Landscape Easement”); and WHEREAS, the Encroachment, Access, Drainage and Landscape Easements are collectively referred to herein as the “Permanent Easements”; and WHEREAS, the Developer would be required to maintain any improvements constructed within the Permanent Easements; and WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested a temporary construction easement to do riverbank stabilization work as part of the Development, as shown on Exhibit “F”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “TCE”); and WHEREAS, the Developer has also requested the right to come onto a portion of the River Parcel to trim existing trees and maintain the view of the Poudre River from the Development, and City staff is recommending that this right be handled through a revocable permit (the “Revocable Permit”); and WHEREAS, the Revocable Permit would expire in twenty years if not sooner revoked, and would require the Developer to consult with the City Forester before doing any tree trimming on the River Parcel; and WHEREAS, the area of the proposed Revocable Permit is described on Exhibit “G”, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City does not have an established policy on setting compensation for easements in the City’s rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, in the absence of such a policy, compensation would be based on the fair market value of the easement granted; and WHEREAS, the Developer would be charged $13,449 as fair market value for the Encroachment Easement; however, if the City Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a policy, whether by ordinance or resolution, for the granting of easements in the City’s rights-of-way, including charges therefor, the Developer will instead pay compensation for the Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449; and WHEREAS, the total value of the other proposed Permanent Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit is approximately $17,675, but City staff is recommending that the City not charge for these property interests because the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping improvement and tree trimming services that the Developer will undertake as part of the Development provide benefits to the City that exceed this value; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 10 of the City Charter states that the Council may grant a permit for the use or occupation of any street, alley or public place, and that such permit shall be revocable by the City Council at its pleasure, whether or not such right to revoke is expressly reserved in such permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Permanent Easements, the TCE and the Revocable Permit to the Developer as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Permanent Easements, TCE and Revocable Permit to the Developer on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the property interests to be conveyed, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of such property interests. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of June, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of June, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of the “River Parcel” A tract of land situate in the SE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, which is more particularly described as follows: Considering the west line of the NW1/4 of said Section 12 as bearing N 0°06'56" W with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; and commencing at the W1/4 corner of said Section 12; thence along the south line of the NW1/4 of said Section 12 S 89°59'14" E 1847.34 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary of that tract described in Book 777, Page 414 of the Larimer County records and to the True Point of Beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence along said northeasterly boundary N 48°51'55" W 200.28 feet to a point on the northwesterly boundary of said tract; thence along said northwesterly boundary S 41°08'05" W 16.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary of that tract described in Book 1205, Page 550 of the Larimer County records; thence N 48°51'16" W 64.65 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of that tract described in Book 973, Page 57 of the Larimer County records; thence along said easterly boundary N 24°25'55" W 314.27 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of a tract described in Book 1132, Page 490 of the Larimer County records; thence along said easterly boundary N 4°20'05" E 230.98 feet to a point on the southwesterly boundary of that tract described in Book 1132, Page 491 of the Larimer County records; thence along said southwesterly boundary and its northwesterly extension N 38°37'55" W 163.46 feet to the southeasterly line of Linden Street; thence along said southeasterly line N 41°08'55" E 211.87 feet; thence S 19°38'12” E 271.75 feet; thence S 7°57'06" E 289.81 feet; thence S 15°36’45" E 139.92 feet; thence S 36°54’12" E 139.95 feet; thence S 61°00'29" E 199.94 feet; thence S 25°59'13" E 86.02 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of a tract described in Book 1406, Page 775 of the Larimer County records; thence along the northerly boundary of said tract N 89°57'00" W 29.60 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said tract; thence along said westerly boundary S 0"03'00" W 2.14 feet to a point on the south line of the NW1/4 of said Section 12; thence along said south line N 89°59'14" W 150.83 feet to the Point of Beginning. DESCRIPTION 1: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 176.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10" West, 26.12 feet; thence, North 48° 18' 52" West, 2.33 feet; thence, North 43° 35' 56" East, 26.15 feet; thence, South 47° 58' 38" East, 1.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 1.doc N48°18'52"2.33' W N43°35'56"26.15' E S47°58'38"1.46' E S41°41'10"26.12' W LINDEN STREET CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER P ROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE S41°41'10"W 176.45' BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 EEANSCERMOEANCTHMENT 50 S.F. N41°41'10"E 464.00' OFCORNER WESTERLY BLOCK 1, CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXHIBIT 1 AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:43:40 PM, 1:1 DESCRIPTION 2: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 158.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10" West, 12.13 feet; thence, North 48° 18' 50" West, 6.00 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10" East, 12.12 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 6.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 73 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 2.doc N48°18'50"6.00' W N41°41'10"12.12' E S48°18'50"6.00' E 12.S41°41'10"13' W PROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE LINDEN STREET CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 S41°41'10"W 158.39' EEANSCERMOEANCTHMENT 73 S.F. N41°41'10"E 464.00' OFCORNER WESTERLY BLOCK 1, CITY OF FORT COLLINS 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com EXHIBIT 2 AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:44:32 PM, 1:1 DESCRIPTION 3: LINDEN STREET ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT An encroachment easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the Northwesterly line of Block 1, South 41° 41' 10" West, 39.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northwesterly line, South 41° 41' 10" West, 73.63 feet; thence, North 47° 53' 17" West, 6.33 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10" East, 10.88 feet; thence, North 41° 18' 50" West, 12.32 feet; thence, North 48° 43' 04" East, 58.55 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 7.11 feet; thence, North 41° 41' 10" East, 3.08 feet; thence, South 48° 18' 50" East, 4.28 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 971 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 3.doc N47°53'17"W 6.33' N41°41'10"E 10.88' N41°18'50"W 12.32' N48°43'04"58.55' E S48°18'50"E 7.11' N41°41'10"E 3.08' S48°18'50"4.28' E S41°41'10"W 73.63' PROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 LINDEN STREET CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER S41°41'10"39.33' W ENCROACHMENT E97A1SEMENT S.F. N41°41'10"E 464.00' WESTERLY CORNER OF CITY BLOCK OF FORT 1,COLLINS 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com EXHIBIT 3 AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:45:52 PM, 1:1 DESCRIPTION 4: PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT A Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: BEGINNING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence, North 38° 04' 50" West, 27.72 feet; thence, North 41° 23' 02" East, 47.27 feet; thence, South 48° 03' 17" East, 28.14 feet; thence, South 25° 39' 41" East, 56.83 feet; thence, South 30° 36' 33" East, 83.64 feet; thence, South 41° 23' 53" West, 28.74 feet to the Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 38° 04' 50" West, 135.03 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 6,534 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 4.doc N38°04'50"27.72' W N41°23'02"47.27' E S48°03'17"28.14' E S25°39'41"E 56.83' S30°36'33"E 83.64' PROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 LINDEN STREET CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER PERMANENT ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION,MAINTENANCE EASEMENT - 6,534 S.F. S41°23'53"28.74' W N38°04'50"W 135.03' S 41°41'10"W N41°41'10"E 464.00' OFCORNER WESTERLY BLOCK 1, CITY OF FORT COLLINS 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com EXHIBIT 4 A PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:46:40 PM, 1:1 DESCRIPTION 5: DRAINAGE EASEMENT A Drainage Easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1, South 38° 04' 50" East, 101.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 52° 41' 33" East, 27.50 feet; thence, South 37° 46' 35" East, 20.00 feet; thence, South 52° 41' 33" West, 27.39 feet to the Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1; thence along said Northeasterly line, North 38° 04' 50" West, 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 549 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 5.doc N38°04'50"W 20.00' BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 LINDEN STREET EDARSAEIMNAEGNTE 549 S.F. PROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE N52°41'33"27.50' E S37°46'35"20.00' E S52°41'33"27.39' W S 38°04'50"E 101.75' POUDRE CACHE RIVER LA S 41°41'10"W N41°41'10"E 464.00' OFCORNER WESTERLY BLOCK 1, CITY OF FORT COLLINS 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com EXHIBIT 5 A DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:47:46 PM, 1:1 DESCRIPTION 6: LANDSCAPE EASEMENT A Landscape Easement located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the Northwesterly line of Block 1, City of Fort Collins as bearing South 41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: COMMENCING at the Northerly corner of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of River District Block One Mixed Use (said point being North 41° 41' 10" East, 464.00 feet from the westerly corner of Block 1, City of Fort Collins); thence along the Northeasterly line of proposed Lot 1, South 38° 04' 50" East, 137.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 41° 23' 53" East, 13.09 feet; thence, South 20° 04' 16" East, 35.64 feet; thence, South 13° 16' 42" East, 16.85 feet; thence, South 29° 30' 36" East, 12.20 feet; thence, South 03° 49' 40" East, 20.38 feet; thence, South 03° 58' 09" West, 19.00 feet; thence, South 36° 50' 59" West, 10.13 feet; thence, South 01° 59' 39" West, 15.18 feet; thence, South 08° 37' 57" East, 17.53 feet; thence, South 14° 25' 44" West, 11.13 feet; thence, South 27° 42' 53" West, 11.90 feet; thence, South 57° 00' 19" West, 10.65 feet; thence, South 27° 15' 22" West, 9.52 feet to the Easterly line of said proposed Lot 1; thence along the Easterly and Northeasterly lines of said proposed Lot 1, North 04° 53' 10" East, 144.31 feet; thence, North 38° 04' 50" West, 28.42 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2,206 square feet, more or less. LMS May 24, 2013 S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Description 6.doc OFCORNER WESTERLY BLOCK 1, CITY OF FORT COLLINS CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER N41°23'53"E 13.09' S20°04'16"E 35.64' S13°16'42"E 16.85' S29°30'36"E 12.20' S03°49'40"E 20.38' S03°58'09"W 19.00' S36°50'59"W 10.13' S01°59'39"W 15.18' S08°37'57"E 17.53' S14°25'44"W 11.13' S27°42'53"W 11.90' S57°00'19"W 10.65' S27°15'22"W 9.52' N04°53'10"E 144.31' N38°04'50"W 28.42' PROPOSED RIVER DISTRICT LOT 1, BLOCK BLOCK 1 ONE MIXED USE BASIS NORTHWEBSETAERRILNYGS OF LINE OF BLOCK 1 LINDEN STREET S38°04'50"E 137.33' LEAANSDESMCAEPNET 2,206 S.F. S41°41'10"W N41°41'10"E 464.00' S:\Survey Jobs\685-002\Dwg\Exhibits\685-002 Exhibits 5-12-13.dwg, 5/24/2013 1:48:30 PM, 1:1 200 South College Avenue, Suite 010 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com EXHIBIT 6 A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT F Temporary Construction Easement Area EXHIBIT G Revocable Permit Area (shaded) e L n Nancy Gray Ave S i tting B u l l W a y Bucking Horse Ln Songbird Ln Haymeadow Way Kansas Dr Rigden Pkwy Windrow Dr Iowa Dr Katahdin Dr M i l e s H o use A v e N a n c y G r a y A v e E Drake Rd S Timberline Rd © Fort Collins 2608 East Landmark Drake Designation Road Vicinity Map 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. 1 inch = 500 feet Johnson 2608 East Farm Drake Property Road ATTACHMENT 1 HIGHWAY 34 EISENHOWER Long and Coyote View Farm Ridge Open Natural Space, Area Prairie - McKee Ridge Parcel Natural Location Area, Map Natural Areas General City Natural Areas City Open Lands Other Agency Natural Areas Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2013 City Natural Areas ¹ City Open Lands Other Agency Natural Areas 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Long View Farm Open Space Coyote McKee Ridge Natural Parcel Area - Prairie Ridge Natural Area ATTACHMENT 1