HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 02/04/2014 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Steve Roy Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson
City Attorney City Manager 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. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Meeting
February 4, 2014
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
None.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
City Manager Review of Agenda.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
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.
o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion
Items.
o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion
Items.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled 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.
● State your name and address for the record
● Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience is not allowed
● Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
● Address your comments to Council, not the audience
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
Consent Calendar
The Consent 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. Anyone
may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered
separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under
Pulled Consent Items. 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.
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the
January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2014 Regular Council
Meeting and the January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General
Fund for the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of
College and Mountain Avenues.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates
unanticipated revenues in the amount of $19,839, received in excess of previously appropriated
funds, for the Avery Building Restoration project.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the
General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates grant
funds in the amount of $32,000 received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law
Enforcement Board to help fund services provided by the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police
Services for victim advocacy services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of
crime and their family members.
4. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2014, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant
Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic
Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, approve a grant
contract with History Colorado and appropriate unanticipated revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for
historic building restoration. The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $141,877 from the
State Historical Fund to fund 71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 to restore two historic structures
at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed. The City also received a
$43,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 29% in funds necessary to
match the State funding. Natural Areas fund monies will be used to fund the remaining $14,950
necessary for the project. Information requested at First Reading regarding the use of Natural Areas
Funds for historic preservation has been provided.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2014, Waiving Certain Fees for Fort Collins Housing
Authority's Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project and Appropriating General Fund
Reserves to Pay Specified Fees.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, authorizes certain
development and capital improvement expansion fee waivers to be provided to the Fort Collins
Housing Authority (FCHA) for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive housing project. In March
2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which the FCHA could request fee waivers and
made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are those constructed for homeless or disabled
persons, or for persons whose income falls at or below 30% of the adjusted median income of all
City residents. FCHA is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $274,199 for this housing project.
This is a permissible type of project for a fee waiver request.
Changes to the Ordinance on Second Reading are to fix an error in Section 3 that referred to the
funds being appropriated rather than the fees being waived, and to clarify that the appropriated funds
are to replace the waived Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Additional information about the
ownership structure of Redtail Ponds was requested at First Reading and has been provided.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary
Construction Easement and Right-of-Way on Long View Farm Open Space to the Colorado
Department of Transportation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, conveys a right-of-way
and temporary construction easement to the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Colorado
Department of Transportation has requested to acquire in fee approximately 0.07 acres of right-of-
way along with a temporary construction easement on Long View Farm Open Space, as part of the
Hwy 392/US 287 Intersection project. The easement and right-of-way acquisition is needed to
replace an existing stormwater pipe with a large box culvert. The project will impact a small section
of a low value wetland on the property that will be mitigated through the Natural Areas wetland
mitigation fund.
City of Fort Collins Page 4
On January 23, 2014, the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously to
approve this easement. At its December 11, 2013, regular meeting the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City
Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code
concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or
electric service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the
table of utility bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references
mechanical electric meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The
use of this descriptor has created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision.
The recommended change is to provide greater clarity.
8. Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2012 International Codes.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the
City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and Adopting
the 2012 International Building Code, with Amendments.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the
City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
and Adopting the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code, with Amendments.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the
City Code for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and
Adopting the 2012 International Residential Code, with Amendments.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for
the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC), and adopting the 2012
International Mechanical Code, with Amendments.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for
the Purpose Repealing the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), and Adopting the 2012
International Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, adopt the 2012
International Codes (I-Codes). The 2012 I-Codes represent the most up-to-date construction
standards establishing minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general
welfare from hazards attributed to the built environment within the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance Nos. 018, 2014 (IBC) and 019, 2014 (IECC) have been amended to include a reference
the International Green Construction Code among the referenced standards listed. Ordinance No.
020, 2014, International Residential Code, has been revised on Second Reading to correct Code
section numbering of Item numbers (64) and (65) that were incorrectly labeled (see page 21 of
Ordinance). Section R313.2 (page 14 of the Ordinance) has been revised to delete single-family
dwellings from the fire-sprinkler requirement, which were not intended to be sprinkled.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2014 Vacating a Portion of the Fossil Boulevard Right-of-Way
as Dedicated on the Plat of Redtail.
The purpose of this item is to vacate a portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way that is no longer
necessary or desirable to retain for public street purposes. The property owner adjacent to this
portion of right-of-way is requesting the vacation. This location will be the future site of the Redtail
Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing project (Redtail Second Filing) which was approved at the
Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing on November 21, 2013.
City of Fort Collins Page 5
10. Resolution 2014-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties
Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District
Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2013 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
CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
STAFF REPORTS
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
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.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2014, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Land Necessary for the Construction of the West Vine Basin Outfall Project.
(staff: Tawyna Ernst, Matt Fater; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion)
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) authorizes the use of
eminent domain to acquire property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall project. In assembling
property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, the City has encountered two properties
with complicated lending situations. Due to the degree of complication and the properties’ keystone
importance, staff proposes the use of eminent domain as the most cost effective and efficient
approach to complete the City’s desired acquisition of 12.841 acres if all the necessary lender
City of Fort Collins Page 6
consents cannot be obtained in a timely way. The City has been working with the landowners and
they are agreeable to this approach.
12. Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Stoner
Subdivision Major Amendment. (staff: Jason Holland; 10 minute staff presentation; 2 hour
discussion)
On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision
regarding a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of
the Stoner Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street.
The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose.
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council
meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the January
14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 7, 2014 Regular Council Meeting and the
January 14, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 7, 2014 (PDF)
2. January 14, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 7
January 7, 2014
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, January 7,
2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Troxell and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2014,
Authorizing the Execution of a New Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to a Regional
Road Impact Fee Program, Adopting a Regional Road Impact Fee Schedule, Ratifying Fee
Changes and Collections Made in the Past, and Amending Section 7.5-85(d) of the City Code
Pertaining to the Remittance to the County of the Collected Fees, will be removed from the
agenda to allow staff additional time to gather information.
Citizen Participation
Mike Devereaux, Commission on Disabilities, 3344 Hickock Drive, discussed the lack of access
to bus stops due to a lack of snow removal.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, spoke in support of Mr. Devereaux’s
snow removal concerns and expressed concern regarding the press release for the Police Services
community meeting concerning body-worn cameras. She stated the standard operating
procedures for body-worn cameras should be referenced in the press release and should be easier
to locate on the City’s web page.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed Item No. 12, First Reading of Ordinance No.
004, 2014, Authorizing the Execution of a New Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to a
Regional Road Impact Fee Program, Adopting a Regional Road Impact Fee Schedule, Ratifying
Fee Changes and Collections Made in the Past, and Amending Section 7.5-85(d) of the City
Code Pertaining to the Remittance to the County of the Collected Fees, stating there is a
disparity in the distribution of taxpayer dollars in Larimer County.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, discussed community theater events and stated the shuttle
bus which ran during First Night needed improvement. He requested the replacement of the
solar recycling and trash container at Walnut and College. He suggested the City work with the
Fort Collins Rescue Mission to exchange property at the old night club across from New
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
475
Belgium with the existing Mission building, which should house a parking structure.
Mike Pruznick, Fort Collins resident, opposed the City’s economic development process related
to larger, more complicated projects.
Vanessa Fenley, Homeward 2020 Director, announced the annual Point in Time count which
will be used to identify population-specific housing needs for Fort Collins’ homeless population.
Jack Daniels, 172 North College, stated Fort Collins is a wonderful place to live.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat requested information regarding Mr. Devereaux’s concerns. City Manager
Atteberry replied a service area request response will be forthcoming and asked Karen Cumbo,
Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, to provide additional context. Cumbo
noted the City contracts out sidewalk clearing, which should have been completed in far less than
the week mentioned by Mr. Devereaux. She apologized on behalf of the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the sidewalk on the west side of North College Avenue from
Cherry Street north remains packed with snow. He asked about the City’s standards for sidewalk
snow removal. Cumbo replied that is a reminder to the City that it needs to be more consistent
with its snow removal compliance on sidewalks.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the City’s sidewalks need to be given equal priority to the City’s
trails and streets. City Manager Atteberry agreed resources need to be provided if necessary to
further prioritize sidewalk snow removal.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Cumbo for her report and efforts to improve the situation. He
suggested input be gathered from affected individuals, such as those in wheelchairs who have
been negatively affected by a lack of snow removal.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this was an important discussion to hold and requested that residents be
vigilant in making the City aware of issues.
Councilmember Overbeck requested information regarding the Police Services body-worn
cameras. John Hutto, Police Chief, replied the web page has a Frequently Asked Questions
section and noted several meetings have been held and will be held regarding the issue.
Councilmember Overbeck requested the creation of a balance between privacy and surveillance.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted he mentioned to staff Ms. Distaso’s request to link the standard
operating procedures to the press release. Hutto replied a second press release could be released
and added the standard operating procedures link is on the same page as is the press release link.
He noted the purpose of the meeting to be held at the end of the month is to engage in a
community dialogue.
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
476
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 17, 2013 Regular Council
Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 17, 2013 Regular
Council meeting.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2013, Amending the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Code
so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, updates the
City Code, which requires an annual adjustment to certain building permit related fees.
Capital Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to reflect the
changes in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing
fees are adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI
has increased 2.8% since its last adjustment and the ENR has not increased.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2013, Amending Section 2-30 of the City Code
Pertaining to the City Council Meeting Agenda.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, deletes a
City Code provision requiring that the title of any ordinance placed on the consent calendar
be read prior to action by the Council on the consent calendar.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2013, Declaring Certain City-Owned Property as
Road Right of Way.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, declares
parcels of City-owned property located at the southwest corner of Timberline Road and
Prospect Road that is currently used and planned to be used in the future as Timberline
Road, as public road right-of-way.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Land Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related
to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, authorizes
the use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire an additional utility easement which is
needed for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX). As a federally funded
transportation project, this acquisition will conform to the provisions of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended
(Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this act, property owners must be informed about
the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to the act though an official
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
477
Notice of Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this
information to property owners. Staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for
the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
6. Items Relating to the Mail Creek Crossing Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2013, Annexing Property Known as the Mail
Creek Crossing Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2013, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Mail Creek
Crossing Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on December 17, 2013, annex and zone 39.608
acres located on the north side of Zephyr Road, approximately 1,450 feet east of South
Timberline Road (just east of Bacon Elementary). The proposed zoning for this annexation
is LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2013, Authorizing the Release of Restrictive
Covenants on Property at 405 Linden Street Owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, authorizes
the release of the Agreement of Restrictive Covenants Affecting Real Property for the
property located at 405 Linden Street, currently owned by the Fort Collins Housing
Authority.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2013, Amending Ordinance No. 158, 2013, to Phase
In the Effective Date of the Regulations Adopted by Ordinance No. 158, 2013, for Outdoor
Service Areas That Are Not Located Within or Adjacent to Public Sidewalks or Other
Public Rights-of-Way.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 17, 2013, amends the
effective date of the new City Code provisions that expanded the application of the smoking
ordinance to outdoor serving areas. The Ordinance establishes a “phase-in” or delayed
implementation date for outdoor service areas that are not within or adjacent to sidewalks or
other public rights-of-way, in an effort to limit the negative impact of Ordinance No. 158,
2013, on affected businesses.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Gardens on Spring Creek.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate a total of $76,000 in grant funding received by the
Gardens on Spring Creek.
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
478
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue for the
Senior Center Expansion Project and Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services
and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $400,000 to the Senior Center Expansion Project.
The additional funding is money raised by the Senior Center Expansion Committee. These
funds will be used to provide improvements to the expansion project for items requested by
facility staff and users; including completion of the Multi-purpose room as an education
center.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2014, Amending Section 1-15 of the City Code
Relating to General Penalties.
The purpose of this item is to adjust the maximum fines Municipal Court may impose so
they are consistent with state law.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2014, Authorizing the Execution of a New
Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to a Regional Road Impact Fee Program, Adopting
a Regional Road Impact Fee Schedule, Ratifying Fee Changes and Collections Made in the
Past, and Amending Section 7.5-85(d) of the City Code Pertaining to the Remittance to the
County of the Collected Fees.
The purpose of this item is to execute a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
Larimer County that allows for the collection of a Regional Road Fee at the time of
development. The Ordinance adopts a fee schedule and ratifies past fee changes and
collections and also amends Section 7.5-85(d) of the City Code pertaining to the remittance
of the fee.
13. Items Relating to the Kechter Farm Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2014-001 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Kechter Farm Crossing Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2014, Annexing Property Known as the
Kechter Farm Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2014, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Kechter Farm Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
479
This is a request to annex and zone 88.21 acres located north of Fossil Creek Reservoir,
approximately 1,320 feet south of Kechter Road, 2,640 feet east of South Timberline Road,
just west of Ziegler Road, and southwest of Kinard Middle School. The property is located
within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. In accordance with the Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County, adopted in 1999, properties within the Fossil Creek
Reservoir Area receive their land use approvals in the County and are annexed into the City
prior to construction.
Kechter Farm has a General Development Plan (comparable to the City’s Overall
Development Plan) that encompasses 286 acres. The first phase of the project is 88.21 acres
and is currently in the County’s development review process. Within the first phase, there is
a 2.85 acre commercial area, 1.45 acre recreation center with a neighborhood park, and the
remaining land is dedicated to residential development. The requested zoning for this
annexation is LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and UE - Urban Estate.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as
they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer
County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. The annexation of this
property will create an enclave, which will affect approximately 180 acres of land to the
north and west of the subject annexation.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2014, Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of City-
Owned Property at 225 Maple Street to Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. For Up to
Five Years.
The purpose of this item is to lease 4,446 square feet of City-owned property to a non-profit
cafe.
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. ("FoCo") wishes to lease a portion of 225 Maple
Street to house a non-profit café with a minimal food processing facility. The total yearly
lease payment for the property will be at least $16,900. The term of the lease shall be for
five years. With this lease, FoCo will have the option to terminate at any time upon a 90-day
advanced written notice to the City. FoCo will be responsible for its remodel, taxes, all
utilities, communication services, trash services and janitorial services.
15. Resolution 2014-002 Making Appointments to the Energy Board.
The purpose of this item is to correct an omission that occurred in Resolution 2013-107 that
made annual appointments to various boards, commissions, and authorities. Two
appointments to the Energy Board were not included in that Resolution. Councilmembers
Gino Campana and Ross Cunniff recommend the appointment of Philip Friedman and
Michael Doss to the Energy Board.
***END CONSENT***
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
480
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No.
003, 2014, Amending Section 1-15 of the City Code Relating to General Penalties from the
Consent Calendar.
Michael Czaja, 204 Maple Steet, withdrew Item No. 14, First Reading of Ordinance No. 007,
2014, Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of City-Owned Property at 225 Maple Street to Feeding
Our Community Ourselves, Inc. For Up to Five Years from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat,
Campana, Poppaw, Cunniff and Overbeck. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, introduced Emily Allen, Community Liaison.
She stated the position is funded by both the City and Colorado State University and illustrates
the dedication to the partnership.
Allen discussed the Neighborhood Outreach Program which welcomes new tenants to
neighborhoods and reminds them of community expectations. She also discussed Community
Welcome which occurs at the beginning of each school year, the Fall Clean Up program in which
students aid elderly and physically-limited residents with fall leaf clean up, and the City’s Party
Registration program which allows for one warning to be issued for noise violations prior to
receiving citations.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Allen for her report and noted this program has been recognized
by the National League of Cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak commended Sowder and Allen’s work.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Horak commended the group of private citizens who have raised funds toward
the Senior Center expansion. He stated Platte River Power Authority’s strategic plan is now
available and stated an I-25 coalition is examining possible funding of an additional traffic lane
on I-25 from Highway 66 to Highway 14. He stated he will be attending the MPAC 64 meeting
regarding solutions to transportation funding.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on Council’s legislative breakfast on December 22nd.
Councilmember Troxell went into further detail regarding the meeting and the City’s legislative
agenda.
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
481
Council Consideration of Text Amendment to the
Community Commercial-Poudre River Zone District (C-C-R), Motion to approve staff
recommendation that no amendment to the Land Use Code Be Made, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to comply with Land Use Code (LUC) requirements that direct the
Planning Director to submit any additions to the list of permitted uses to Council for
consideration as a text amendment. If the Council disagrees with the staff recommendation, it
should adopt a motion directing staff to prepare and present an ordinance to Council to amend
the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that no amendment to the LUC be made in conjunction with this added use for
the following reasons:
The main purpose of the District is to foster a healthy and compatible relationship between the
River, the Downtown and surrounding urban uses. Any significant redevelopment shall be
designed as part of a master plan for the applicable group of contiguous properties. The Link-
N-Greens site was large enough to be able to foster a healthy and compatible relationship
between the River, Downtown and surrounding urban uses however there are only three other
areas currently zoned C-C-R all of which are significantly smaller than the “Link-N-Greens”
site and therefore not likely suitable for a Campus Employment use with at least 30 acres. The
largest of the remaining parcels is 23.5 acres.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On September 4, 2012, in accordance with the authority pursuant to Section 1.3.4(A) of the Fort
Collins Land Use Code (LUC) and in conjunction with the application filed by NewMark Merrill
Mountain States for approval of an overall development plan for the site (101.637 acres in size)
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and Lemay Avenues, commonly
known as “Link-N-Greens,” the following use was added to the Community Commercial-Poudre
River Zone District (C-C-R):
Campus employment shall mean a use that combines and permits two (2) or more
of the following uses: office, light industrial, heavy industrial, commercial or
retail in a unified master planned development site containing at least thirty (30)
acres.
The criteria contained in Section 1.3.4(A)(1) through (5) of the Land Use Code was followed and
a determination made that this use conforms to all of the following conditions:
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
482
In adding this use, I have examined the criteria contained in Section 1.3.4(A)(1) through (5) of
the Land Use Code and have determined that this use conforms to all of the following conditions:
(1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted
uses in the zone district to which it is added;
(3) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor,
glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or
attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public
facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or
aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting
from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added;
(4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it
is added;
(5) Such use is not a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation
facility;
Whenever any use has been added by the Director to the list of permitted uses in any zone
district in accordance with subsection (A) above, such use shall be considered for an amendment
to the text of the LUC under Division 2.9 (B).”
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, stated this
item, if adopted, would show Council’s support of excluding a new use, Campus Employment, in
the Community Commercial-Poudre River Zone District. Kadrich discussed the evolution of this
item and its necessity as a “clean-up” item.
Councilmember Campana noted the “addition of a permitted use” is not extremely rare. Kadrich
discussed the approval processes for this technique and agreed with Councilmember Campana’s
assertion that this is a typical process within the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to limit the
Campus Employment use to the Woodward development plans as recommended by the Planning
Director and Planning and Zoning Board and not add the use to the list of permitted uses in the
CCR Zone District. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
483
Resolution 2014-003
Making an Appointment to the Downtown Development
Authority of the City of Fort Collins, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to address the vacancy that exists on the Downtown Development
Authority (DDA).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
By adopting Resolution 2013-107, Council filled two of the three vacancies on the DDA. At the
December 17 Regular Council Meeting, staff was directed to bring options forward for the
remaining vacancy.
Option 1: Adoption of Resolution 2014-003 with the member's name inserted will fill the remaining
vacancy.
or
Option 2: Direct staff to recruit for the remaining vacancy.”
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, for Lee
Swanson to fill the DDA vacancy.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he had originally wanted to re-advertise for this vacancy in order
to find a candidate who would advocate more for some of the sensitivity toward the development
near the River.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck,
Troxell and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 003, 2014,
Amending Section 1-15 of the City Code Relating
to General Penalties, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
484
The purpose of this item is to adjust the maximum fines Municipal Court may impose so they are
consistent with state law.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The General Assembly amended Section 13-10-113, C.R.S., authorizing municipal courts of
record to impose a fine of up to $2,650 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, upon persons
convicted of a municipal ordinance or code offense, with the court fines to be adjusted for
inflation on January 1, 2014, and on January 1 of each year thereafter.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
his increase, allowed by state law, will afford the municipal court judges more discretion in the
tailoring of penalties for more serious offenses. This Ordinance increases the maximum fine
amount that may be charged by a municipality. It is unknown whether it will increase revenues
for the city.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the placement of this item on the Consent
Calendar and stated the Agenda Item Summary contained misinformation and lacked validation
that this move is necessary or that the existing fines are not appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 003, 2014, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff requested statistics relating to the trends and history of the fines prior to
Second Reading. City Attorney Roy replied he would work with Judge Lane to compile the
information.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the fine amount has not been increased in 23 years and supported
the item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck, Troxell,
Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 007, 2014,
Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of City-Owned Property at 225 Maple Street to Feeding
Our Community Ourselves, Inc. For Up to Five Years, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to lease 4,446 square feet of City-owned property to a non-profit cafe.
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
485
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. ("FoCo") wishes to lease a portion of 225 Maple Street
to house a non-profit café with a minimal food processing facility. The total yearly lease
payment for the property will be at least $16,900. The term of the lease shall be for five years.
With this lease, FoCo will have the option to terminate at any time upon a 90-day advanced
written notice to the City. FoCo will be responsible for its remodel, taxes, all utilities,
communication services, trash services and janitorial services.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City purchased Lots 22 through 28, Block 32, also known as 225 Maple Street, from Haiston
Oil Company (“Haiston”), in December 2008 to allow for future City development. This site has
not been leased since the purchase; however, the garage units on the property have been used
for storage by various City departments.
Feeding Our Community Ourselves, Inc. (“FoCo”) is a non-profit organization that plans to
operate a café open to the general public and also provide meals to people, regardless of their
ability to pay, while using local, organic, and sustainably-grown ingredients. FoCo hours of
operation will be 11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. FoCo is a 100%
volunteer operated organization. In addition, the site will minimally process local fresh produce
to increase its availability to low-income citizens.
The Lease Premises at 225 Maple Street consist of 2,023 square foot building (975 SF main level
and 1,048 SF basement) that will house the café. FoCo plans to remodel the main level of the
building to include customer seating/dining area, a kitchen with a food preparation area, and
upgraded improvements to the restrooms. The basement will be used for dry storage and FoCo
office space. A new handicap accessible ramp will be installed on the west side of the building
located next to the platform. Bike racks will be installed on site, although their location has not
yet been determined. Weather permitting, outdoor seating/dining will be available on the gravel
area between the main building (café) and the garage units. FoCo will also lease the
easternmost garage unit, which is 525 square feet in size, and use it for general storage, housing
of refrigeration/freezer units and a “growing wall”. The 110 square foot outbuilding that was
added to the main building prior to the City purchasing the site will be used to hold refrigeration
and freezer units. FoCo will install a full trash enclosure to the south of the main building,
adjacent to the alley for trash service accessibility. FoCo will pay all costs of the remodel.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
Annual rent collected from this lease will result in at least $16,900 in unanticipated revenue.
Rent for this space is based on comparative market rents for industrial space and cold storage
buildings. FoCo will be responsible for expenses of all utilities, communication services, trash
services, janitorial services, and taxes. In addition, it will be the obligation of FoCo for any
tenant finish costs. The City will be responsible for maintenance costs to the building.”
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
486
Michael Czaja, 204 Maple Street, commended the City on working with FoCo but expressed
concern regarding the fact citizens only became aware of this potential arrangement through a
Coloradoan article. He asked if the decision to place the Café in this location was made because
it was suitable to meet the objectives of the organization, or because it was an opportunity to rent
an unused City facility. He asked about the proposed size of the Café and the anticipated number
of customers.
Jean Schorsch, 204 Maple Street, opposed the location of the FoCo project due to safety
concerns in her neighborhood; she supported the idea of the project.
Jim Costner, office space holder at 204 Maple Street, stated he is not opposed to the FoCo Café
and will likely financially support the Café; however, he expressed concern regarding the
proposed location.
Dave Durbiss, 618 Wabash Street, asked if this use will require a change of use for the property
and if the site will be required to undergo improvements.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the item and questioned the City’s lack of
support for “social entrepreneurship.”
Jeff Baumgardner, co-founder of the FoCo Café, stated he would welcome any community input
and would like to ensure any safety concerns are addressed. He added the location is optimal for
the Café as it is close to the individuals of greatest need who have difficulty walking great
distances and is close to others in the downtown area who may opt to purchase a meal.
Cindy Roberts, FoCo Café Boardmember, stated the true measure of community is how we take
care of all of the members of the community. She stated crime is not increased in areas around
these types of cafes and questioned whether or not there are increased crime statistics related to
homeless individuals. She stated the Maple Street location is ideal and noted the FoCo Café
hopes to address neighbors’ concerns.
Ken Smith, Martinez Park Homeowners Association President and FoCo Café Boardmember,
stated this Café will be a restaurant and detailed the concept behind the Café. He stated the
space will have about 30 seats and will only be open at lunch. He expressed support for the Café
as a neighbor, homeowner, president of the HOA, and restaurateur.
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional information regarding the overall concept, noting
it is not a new idea. Mr. Baumgardner replied there are approximately 24 community cafes open
in America. He stated the café offers the opportunity for anyone in the community to go to a
common location and have a common meal experience in a dignified manner.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding community engagement thus far. Mr.
Baumgardner replied he and his wife have been discussing this idea with community members
since June 2012. He stated he has held hundreds of meetings with community members and
organizations which are the financial engine driving the Café forward.
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
487
Mayor Weitkunat requested staff response to the zoning and use questions. Ken Mannon,
Operations Services Director, replied the Baumgardners have gone through the City process and
the use is an approved use in the zone district, though it will require a minor amendment which
means the facility will need to be brought up to some new standards. Helen Matson, Real Estate
Services Manager, added the lease agreement requires that all tenant alterations follow all laws,
ordinances, and rules of the City or other governing agencies.
Mayor Weitkunat asked Matson to address the questions posed by the speakers. Matson replied
this project was originally recommended for 212 Laporte Avenue; however, the redevelopment
of that block will eliminate that building. After looking at several sites and the available lease
terms for each, the new proposed site was selected. Matson stated the restaurant itself will be on
the first floor, which has 975 square feet, and will hold about 30 seats. There are plans to have
some outdoor seating additionally. Mannon stated the question about DDA involvement cannot
yet be answered.
Councilmember Overbeck asked if the Café will be required to apply for a restaurant license.
Matson replied they will need to follow all applicable laws, including those of the County Health
Department.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 007, 2014, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he is encouraged about the development of this project and noted
the item was originally on the Consent Calendar as it was not viewed as controversial; however,
he stated important conversations have occurred as a result of the discussion.
Councilmember Campana noted the City’s involvement to this point is limited to the lease of a
City-owned property; therefore, notice would not have been provided to citizens. He stated
notice will be provided as part of the minor amendment process.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if notice is typically given when a restaurant opens. Matson
replied any type of land use change, through either the minor amendment or major amendment
process requires citizen notification; however, there is no notification process when the City
plans to lease a building.
Councilmember Overbeck commended the FoCo Café and the willingness of the Baumgardner’s
to have a conversation with the neighbors.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he is enthusiastic about the project, but not about acting on the
lease this evening. He stated some type of neighborhood outreach should have occurred, even
though it is not required, given the fact that most City properties are not expected to be
restaurants. He suggested postponement of the item to allow time for a neighborhood meeting
and discussions.
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
488
Mayor Weitkunat stated this item is a lease for a City property and is not specifically related to
use; neighborhood involvement will be triggered through the planning process.
Councilmember Campana stated the way in which the dialogue took place was a bit awkward;
however, this item only allows the lease of the property which needs to be in place prior to the
planning process. He suggested Council require a neighborhood meeting in association with the
minor amendment process.
Mayor Weitkunat commended the project and stated it speaks to the Fort Collins idea of
community.
Councilmembers Troxell and Poppaw agreed to accept the condition of a neighborhood meeting.
Councilmember Poppaw supported the project and neighborhood outreach.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if minor amendment decisions can be appealed. City Attorney Roy
replied he would return with that information.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak expressed concern the minor amendment decision could be appealed to
Council, which has already approved the lease without looking at any potential mitigation, and
the fact that the agenda item did not point out a number of other things that needed to occur for
this process.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak opposed moving forward with the item suggesting the Director will not
push the minor amendment decision to the Planning and Zoning Board after Council has already
supported the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion to postpone the item until such time as the planning
process is complete.
THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the planning process cannot move forward until the lease is
produced. He stated planning staff should not take Council’s enthusiasm regarding the project as
being more important than City Code regulations.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted the discussion has not revolved around the lease, but rather the
project. He asked if the lease is required for the project to move forward and if the lease will be
signed prior to the planning process moving forward. Matson replied the lease will be signed as
the planning process required permission of the property owner; however, if approval for the
project is not granted, the Café has the option to terminate the lease.
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 7, 2014
489
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Cunniff, Overbeck, Troxell, Weitkunat
and Campana. Nays: Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to go into
Executive Session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney, City Manager, and other
affected members of City Staff to discuss potential litigation and related legal issues as permitted
under Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat,
Campana and Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Council adjourned into executive session and returned at 9:18 p.m.)
Adjournment
Councilmember Overbeck made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adjourn to
Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. so that the Council may consider various items related
to the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall, as well as any additional business that may come
before the Council. Yeas: Cunniff, Overbeck, Campana, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: Mayor Weitkunat was not present for the vote on the motion to adjourn.)
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment1.1: January 7, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
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, January
14, 2014, 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
and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Weitkunat
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Items Relating to the Redevelopment of the Foothills Mall
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2014-004 Approving an Updated Redevelopment and Reimbursement
Agreement with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings
VI, L.L.C. and the Foothills Metropolitan District Regarding the Redevelopment of
Foothills Mall.
B. Resolution 2014-005 Updating Prior Action 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.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2014, Vacating Foothills Parkway Right-of-Way
Between College Avenue and Mathews Street, and Vacating a Portion of Mathews Street.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent
Irrigation Ditch Easement and Right-of-Way to the Larimer County Canal No. 2
Irrigating Company Within the South College Avenue Frontage Road.
The purpose of this item is to authorize and approve several items relating to the redevelopment
of Foothills Mall. Resolution 2014-004 authorizes and approves the execution of a
Reimbursement and Redevelopment Agreement to support the redevelopment of Foothills Mall.
The Agreement was made available for public review on Friday, January 3. Revisions to the
Agreement since that time include the addition of a new Subsection 12.3(g), related to Arc Thrift
Store, as well as clarification of the minimum Mall square footage.
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
427
Resolution 2014-005 approves a time extension for developing a financial model with Larimer
County for evaluating fiscal impacts associated with the formation of tax increment financing
districts.
Ordinance No. 008, 2014 vacates the right-of-way for the remaining public street portion of
Foothills Parkway from College Avenue to Mathews Street, along with a portion of the west side
of Mathews Street intersecting Foothills Parkway. Ordinance No. 009, 2014, authorizes the
conveyance of a permanent irrigation ditch easement and right-of-way to accommodate the
realignment of the Larimer No. 2 Ditch, which allows the ditch to be relocated off the Mall
property.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A. Resolution 2014-004 Approving an Updated Redevelopment and Reimbursement
Agreement with the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority, Walton Foothills Holdings
VI, L.L.C. and the Foothills Metropolitan District Regarding the Redevelopment of
Foothills Mall.
NOTE: Please refer to the May 7, 2013 Agenda Item Summary for a project overview,
description of public benefits, and other project details (See Attachment 1).
Overview of Changes
On November 8, 2012, exclusive negotiations between the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
(URA) and Walton/Alberta were initiated under an Agreement to Negotiate. On May 8, 2013, the
City Council and the URA Board each adopted a resolution authorizing and approving the
execution of a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement in connection with the
redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. Since May, Alberta Development on behalf of Walton
Foothills Holdings VI, L.L.C. (Developer) has continued to refine the site plan and program for
the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The following summarizes the changes to the project since
May.
Mall Configuration
The Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) approved a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the
redevelopment of Foothills Mall on February 7, 2013. On December 12, 2013, P&Z reviewed a
major amendment to the PDP. The major amendment includes a change in the total square
footage of the project of approximately 10 percent, Table 1 highlights the differences. The
biggest change is a reduction of the theater of approximately 43,000 square feet. Only
concessions are taxable at a theater and constitute approximately one-third of total sales;
therefore this reduction does not have a one for one proportional impact on anticipated retail
sales. In addition, the changes include a reduction in other commercial space of approximately
32,000 square feet (the difference between the increase of interior mall space and reduction of
all other space).
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
428
Table 1
Project Square Footage Comparison
Eligible Costs Review
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 Authority and Metro District) are relatively broad, overlap to some extent, 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;
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
Feb. Dec.
SF %
Retained/Redeveloped
Interior Mall
176,161 208,098 31,937 18.1%
Macy's 127,971 127,971 0 0.0%
Theater 86,754 43,655 -43,099 -49.7%
Youth Activity Center 23,863 24,705 842 3.5%
All Other Space 319,038 254,702 -64,336 -20.2%
Total 733,787 659,131 -74,656 -10.2%
Difference
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
429
may be as high as $108 million -- significantly higher than the $53 million in public assistance
being offered, which is approximately 49 percent of the estimate of total eligible costs (see Table
2). However, the Developer and the City 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 2
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: The parking structure allows for greater utilization of site; specifically the
ability to create public gathering spaces and additional pedestrian and bicycle
facilities/amenities.
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 and provides an
opportunity for a pedestrian underpass (described below).
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.
Originally the developer requested $72 million in cost reimbursement. Through the negotiation
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
430
process outlined above this amount was reduced to the $53 million public finance package
presented in this document. The most notable reductions from the requested assistance fall into
three categories: (1) Land Acquisition, which the developer requested $16 million in
reimbursement; and (2) Soft Costs, which the developer requested $7.1 million, and (3) Parking
Structure, which the developer requested $12.8 million.
Table 2
Summary of Eligible Costs for Reimbursement, Comparison
($ Millions)
The eligible costs have not changed significantly since May. The costs as site, utility, and public
improvement costs remain fixed despite the change in the total square footage of the project. One
change that has been specifically identified is the shift in the parking structure to 978 spaces and
four stories from a larger six story structure. Staff queried the Developer regarding savings
related to this shift. Alberta Partners indicates that the project budget has always assumed a
smaller structure than was entitled and, therefore, the cost for this improvement has not
changed. This is consistent with the Developer’s approach to the multifamily housing, which
includes and entitlement for 800 units but has been modeled at 446 units based on developer
input. Staff further evaluated the Developer’s statement by comparing the cost per space of a 4-
story 978 space parking structure to current market costs. At the original cost estimate of $12.8
million this equates to $13,000 per space (excluding Architecture and Engineering Costs), which
is consistent with costs for similar structures being constructed in the market today.
Financial Investment Overview
The following narrative summarizes the revised financing package and highlights changes since
May.
The public financing package still includes the pledge of four revenue sources in the following
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
431
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 the 25-year tax increment period or until the bond is
fully repaid, if prior to expiration of the tax increment 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 terminates with the repayment of the bond.
Sales Tax Increment – As the URA will pledge 100 percent of the annual sales tax
increment generated above a base by the Project from the City’s 2.25 percent General
Fund Sales Tax rate (the “Core Rate”), which is the sales tax increment established for
the URA in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan.
The above priority order works such that the first revenue source pledged to bond repayment is
the last revenue source out. Debt service is paid from all revenues collected and excess pledged
revenues are released by the Bond Trustee if not needed to support Debt Service as provided in
the agreement. Therefore, Tax increment revenues will be returned to the URA and the City
when not needed for debt service on the bond. Therefore, the Sales Tax Increment Pledge,
despite existing for all 25 years, is expected to result in the return of funds back to the City as
early as 2018.
Project Cost Summary
The total redevelopment project is estimated to cost $313 million; down from the estimated $319
million in May (previously misstated in the May 7 Agenda Item Summary). These costs are split
between the commercial/retail at approximately $231 million (down from $237 million in May)
or 74 percent and 446 anticipated residential units at a total cost of $82 million or 26 percent.
The eligible costs, which remain the same as described in May (See Table 3), total
approximately $53 million or 17 percent of the total cost and 23 percent of the commercial/retail
costs. The eligible costs represents the target amount of bond proceeds to be generated by the
pledged revenues.
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
432
Table 3
Summary of Eligible Costs for Reimbursement
($ Millions)
Slide 9 from the presentation
Assumptions
The financial analysis resulting in the public finance investment contemplated in the proposed
Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement relies on several key assumptions. Several of
these assumptions have changed since May. Each of assumptions and the changes are described
briefly below:
Project Timing - The financial analysis assumes a December 23 “go” date for
commencement of construction activity. This result in a ground breaking in
January/February 2014 and substantial completion of the project in November 2015, a
delay of one year from the original schedule presented in May.
Annual Sales Per Square Foot - The financial analysis assumes $378 per square foot in
annual retail sales once the project stabilizes up from $350 per square foot in May (this
rate excludes non-retail space and the anchor department store). The sale per square foot
figure has increased due the increased confidence in anticipated retailers at the center.
In addition, this assumption relies on several inputs: (a) 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); and (b) Economic & Planning Systems full
analysis of retail transfer, inflow and growth.
Occupancy - The financial analysis assumes, based on the construction schedule, that 75
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. A delay of approximately one year.
Blight Removal
Infrastructure
City
Infrastructure
Total
Public
Land Acquisition $ 5.5 $ 5.5
Parking Structure 9.6 9.6
Demolition / Abatement 3.9 3.9
Fixture & Amenities 1.4 1.4
Ditch Relocation 2.8 2.8
Site Work 12.9 12.9
Utilities 4.5 4.5
Soft Costs 4.6 4.6
Foothills Activity Center 4.8 4.8
Pedestrian Crossing / Culvert 3.0 3.0
TOTAL $ 45.2 $ 7.8 $ 53.0
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
433
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. NO CHANGE SINCE MAY.
Property Value Growth - The financial analysis assumes that real property values will
increase by 2 percent every other year or 1 percent average annually. This pace of
growth is conservative compared to the historical growth rate in of real property in
Larimer County. NO CHANGE SINCE MAY.
Public Finance Revenue Summary
The Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement 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.
In May, a single public finance scenario was presented in the Agenda Item Summary and staff
presentation. The staff presentation attached to this document presents several scenarios
covering assumptions about interest rate and sales tax rate. Two scenarios are highlighted
including: (1) a scenario based on an assumed 7.00 percent interest rate consistent with the May
assumption and (2) a more conservative scenario assuming a 7.25 percent interest rate. These
scenarios are compared to the single scenario presented in May below, see Table 4. These
scenarios indicate that the City sales tax increment applied to debt service on the bonds will
range between $9.0 and $12.0 million depending on interest rate. In addition, the net new Sales
Tax revenue to the City after release of pledged revenues over the 25 year time period will range
between $108 and $117 million, depending on assumptions about interest rate and inclusion
versus exclusion of sales transfer changes. The more specific information provided in subsequent
tables below relates to the first scenario assuming a 7.00 percent interest rate consistent with the
May assumptions.
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
434
Table 4
Project and Public Finance Summary Comparison
Slide 8 from the presentation
The primary revenues supporting the bond will come from the Metro District in the form of
annual ad valorem taxes on real property and from the Mall owner in the form of PIF revenues.
These two revenue sources will generate $43.1 and $65.6 million respectively between 2014 and
2038. These revenues have decreased since May based on the changes to the project site plan
and program; Table 5 shows a comparison. In addition, the pledged URA property tax
increment will generate approximately $42.7 million during the same period. By 2020, these
three revenue sources will represent $6.1 million in revenue annually. Based off the financial
analysis, it is anticipated that sales tax increment contribution towards debt service and the
supplemental reserve ends by 2018 until 2029 when additional sales tax increment contributions
Jan 14th Jan 14th
@ 7.00% Bond @ 7.25% Bond
Gross Leasable Area 711k + 24k
Sales Per Square Foot $350
Total Project Cost - Retail $237
Open Assumption Nov '14
Bonds at Par Value $73 $71 $72
Cum Bond Payments $165 $159 $163
First Three Revenue Sources $170 $151 $151
Dedicates Sales Tax Revenue $105 $106 $106
GF Sales Tax Revenue $147 $149 $149
Estimated City ST Remitted $8.8 $9.0 $12.0
Net New ST Revenue $108 $117 $114
Net New w/o Addtl Transfer $111 $108
$231
Phases '14-'15
($ Millions except Sales per
Square Foot)
May 7th
641k + 24k
$378
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
435
are required to meet the debt payments on the bond. The total sales tax increment contribution is
anticipated to be $9 million.
Table 5
Comparison of Public Finance Revenues Generated by the Project, 2014-2038
Slide 21 from the presentation
In addition, sales tax increment has been pledged to support the issuance of a bond. There are
three components to the sales tax generated by the Project, including:
Base - Existing sales tax revenue generated by retailers in the Mall and surrounding
Project Area.
Transfer - Revenue from other areas of the city that shift to the Mall after redevelopment.
New - The net new revenue, or revenue in excess of base and transfer, associated with the
redeveloped mall project.
In addition, the sales tax revenue can be broken by the various pieces of the effective 3.85
percent rate. There are two main pieces, including:
Core City Sales Tax Rate - This corresponds to the long-standing 2.25 percent General
Fund rate.
Dedicated City Sales Tax Rate - This corresponds to the sum total of four dedicated sales
taxes including: Transportation (0.25 percent), Natural Areas (0.25 percent), Building on
Basics (0.25 percent), and Keep Fort Collins Great (0.85 percent) dedicated sales tax
($ Millions)
Cumulative
Annual
Funding 2020
Cumulative
Annual
Funding 2020
First Three Revenue Sources 25 years 25 years
District Property Tax $ 50.0 $ 2.1 $ 43.1 $ 1.8
URA Property Tax Increment 55.2 2.3 42.7 1.9
Developer Sales PIF 64.7 2.3 65.6 2.4
Metro District Funding $ 169.9 $ 6.7 $ 151.4 $ 6.1
Today's Value $ 62.5 $ 55.3
May 7th Jan 14th
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
436
rates for a total of 1.60 percent.
The revenue generated by the constituent pieces of the Sales Tax rates is summarized in Table 6.
The base, transfer, and new components of the Dedicated City Sales Tax Rate will generate
approximately $106 million between 2014 and 2038. In addition, the Core Rate base Sale Tax
Revenue will generate approximately $44.5 million during the same period. Therefore, the total
revenue generated by the project that is not pledged to the bond is approximately $150.5 million.
Table 6
Comparison of Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2014-2038
Slide 22 from the presentation
The Agreement only pledges the transfer and new (together, the incremental) sales tax revenue
related to the Core Rate. Based on the financial analysis, these sales tax increment revenues
represent approximately $104.6 million (up from $102.7 million in May) or the anticipated
pledged sales tax increment revenue.
Public Finance Package Structure
To better understand the structure of the public finance package, Table 7 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 increment revenue to
the project (identified by the yellow) totals $3.2 million (up from $3.1 million in May) of the
approximately $5.1 million generated by the Core Rate (2.25 percent). The City retains the
remaining $5.4 million generated by the unpledged Dedicated Rate (1.60 percent) and Core Rate
($ Millions)
Cumulative
Annual
Funding 2016
Cumulative
Annual
Funding 2016
City Sales Tax Revenue 25 years First Full Year 25 years First Full Year
Dedicated Base / Transfer / New $ 104.6 $ 3.5 $ 106.0 $ 3.6
Core Base 44.4 1.8 44.5 1.8
Core Transfer & New 102.7 3.1 104.6 3.2
City Sales Tax $ 251.7 $ 8.4 $ 255.1 $ 8.7
Today's Value $ 94.7 $ 94.8
May 7th Jan 14th
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
437
base. These numbers increase to $3.4 million in pledged increment revenue and $5.6 million in
retained revenue by 2018.
Table 7
Comparison of Annual Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2016 & 2018
Slide 25 from the presentation
As stated, the pledged sales tax increment revenue serves as the last revenue source to support
the issuance of the bond. Therefore, as the remaining three pledged revenues grow over time the
need for pledged sales tax increment revenue to support the bonds diminishes. The financial
analysis demonstrates this in the estimated cash flow presented in Table 8.
The bond will likely be issued in 2014 with three years of capitalized interest. Based on
forecasts, revenue will first be available to fund debt payments (including contributions to the
supplemental reserve) of the bond in 2015. In 2015, the pledged revenue sources, excluding the
sales tax increment revenue, will generate approximately $1.8 million towards bond repayment
and reserve contributions. The pledged sales tax increment revenue will generate an additional
$0.8 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 increment revenue, will grow to $4.9
million in 2017 largely due to the delay in property tax valuation and collection. The pledged
sales tax increment revenue is anticipated to grow to $3.3 million. Together, these revenues will
cover the debt payment and the last sizable portion of the supplemental reserve fund
contribution.
Starting in 2018, the pledged revenue sources, excluding sales tax increment revenue, are
anticipated to cover the debt payment, which is anticipated to terminate in 2038. As a result,
($ Millions)
Base Transfer New Total Base Transfer New Total
Core Tax - 2.25% 1.8 1.0 2.1 $ 4.9 1.8 0.9 2.3 $ 5.1
Dedicated Tax - 1.6% 1.3 0.7 1.5 $ 3.5 1.3 0.7 1.6 $ 3.6
Total $ 3.1 $ 1.7 $ 3.6 $ 8.4 $ 3.2 $ 1.6 $ 3.9 $ 8.6
Base Transfer New Total Base Transfer New Total
Core Tax - 2.25% 1.8 1.1 2.2 $ 5.1 1.8 1.0 2.4 $ 5.3
Dedicated Tax - 1.6% 1.3 0.8 1.6 $ 3.7 1.3 0.7 1.7 $ 3.8
Total $ 3.1 $ 1.9 $ 3.8 $ 8.8 $ 3.2 $ 1.8 $ 4.2 $ 9.1
May 7th
Sales Tax in 2016
Sales Tax in 2018
Jan 14th
Sales Tax in 2016
Sales Tax in 2018
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
438
starting in 2018 the pledged sales tax increment revenue will not be required to meet debt
payments or reserve contributions until 2029 when additional sales tax increment contributions
will be required. These revenues will, according to the terms of the Agreement, be released back
to the City. In 2018, the total sales tax revenue retained by the City and sales tax increment
revenue released back to the City will rise to $9.0 million and continue at this rate with 2 percent
growth per year. This constitutes a $4.2 million increase in net new revenues compared to the
existing $4.8 million of sales tax revenue generated in 2012. Approximately $7.2 million of the
pledge sales tax increment is used between 2015 and 2017 to support the debt payment and
reserve contributions. Additional sales tax increment contributions will be required between
2029 and 2038 increasing the total estimated sales tax increment applied to the bonds to $9.0
million.
Table 8
Anticipated Public Finance Cash Flow, 2012-2019
($Millions)
Slide 24 from the presentation
One final change between the May financial package and the current version relates to the use of
excess PIF revenue. The project financials are conservatively based on a sales estimate of $378
May 7th
First 3
Revenue
Sources
Pledged
Sales Tax
Increment
Bond
Payments &
Reserve
Sales Tax
Returned
Base &
Dedicated
Sales Tax
Sales Tax
Revenue
2012 4.8
2015 2.1 2.5 4.6 --- 5.0 5.0
2016 2.3 3.1 5.4 --- 5.3 5.3
2017 6.5 3.2 9.7 --- 5.4 5.4
2018 6.5 3.3 6.0 3.3 + 5.5 = 8.8
2019 6.7 3.4 5.7 3.4 + 5.6 = 9.0
Jan 14th
First 3
Revenue
Sources
Pledged
Sales Tax
Increment
Bond
Payments &
Reserve
Sales Tax
Returned
Base &
Dedicated
Sales Tax
Sales Tax
Revenue
2012 4.8
January 14, 2014
439
per square foot. The National average in 2012 for all malls was $455 per square foot and newer
malls in Denver were $600 to $700 per square foot. Anticipating this upside potential, staff built
into the May agreement the creation of a Foothills Mall Fund (FMF) where excess revenues
from the PIF could be used for specific improvements associated with the Mall. The intent was to
keep the Mall fresh and competitive in the retail market. On further reflection, staff considered
the FMF provided additional value to the Developer and not the community. The Agreement
requires the Developer to maintain the Mall as a “Class A” shopping center after completion of
construction.
The current Agreement requires the Bond Trustee to apply excess PIF revenue not needed for
debt service (which is expected to result from retail sales upside) to pay down the principal on
the bonds in the year the excess revenue is generated by the project. This will lower the overall
interest payment and shorten the bond term by approximately four to five years assuming sales
increase to $478 per square foot. Staff believes this would be beneficial to multiple constituents:
Tenants/Developer – Benefit from early termination of the Metro District Debt property
tax of 50 mills reducing overall property tax costs at the site.
Citizens – Benefit from the early termination of the 1.00 percent PIF, which is required to
terminate when the bonds are repaid.
Other Taxing Entities – Could benefit because the URA could elect to discontinue
collecting property tax increment allowing these revenues to flow to the entities ahead of
schedule.
City – Benefits from early payment of the bonds and termination of the sales tax
increment, as well as from the sales tax revenue generated by the increase from $378 to
$478 per square foot.
B. Resolution 2014-005 Updating Prior Action 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.
Under Resolution 2013-045, the City committed to work with Larimer County to develop such
agreements as may be necessary to develop a model for evaluating fiscal impacts associated with
the formation of tax increment financing districts. Work was to be completed by December 15,
2013. For two reasons the work has not been completed - the County wants to involve multiple
municipalities and when the floods hit, the County put this work on hold. The County has
confirmed its desire to complete this work in 2014 and would like a one year extension. In light
of the modification to the schedule for the Mall project, language regarding property tax
increment to be shared with the County has been updated.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2014, Vacating Foothills Parkway Right-of-Way
Between College Avenue and Mathews Street, and Vacating a Portion of Mathews Street.
Foothills Parkway was originally built and dedicated as a public street from College Avenue to
Stanford Road with the development of the Foothills Fashion Mall (now known as Foothills
Mall). In 1988, an expansion to Foothills Mall for Foley’s (now Macy’s) resulted in the vacation
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
440
of Foothills Parkway right-of-way from Mathews Street to Stanford Road as approved in
Ordinance No. 116, 1987 adopted by City Council on May 17, 1988.
The owner of Foothills Mall has requested that the remaining public portion of Foothills
Parkway from College Avenue to Mathews Street be vacated. Additionally, a portion of right-of-
way along the west side of Mathews Street would be vacated due to the owner realigning a
portion of Mathews Street intersecting Foothills Parkway, resulting in excess right-of-way. The
owner received approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 7, 2013 of the
Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan and a condition of approval of the plan
was made requiring this portion of Foothills Parkway be vacated.
Vacations of public right-of-way are governed by City Code Section 23-115, which provides for
an application and review process prior to submission to the City Council for formal
consideration. The process includes review by potentially affected utility agencies, City staff,
emergency service providers, and affected property owners in the vicinity of the right-of-way
proposed to be vacated. This review process was followed in conjunction with review of the
Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan, and based on comments received; the
Planning Development and Transportation Director recommended that the vacation be
approved. With the proposed vacation, easements for access, emergency access, drainage,
utilities, and transit would be retained, preserving rights to utilize the vacated portion for these
purposes. In order to ensure that the vacation is tied to the approval of the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment, this vacation is conditioned upon the recording of the Ordinance, which must
occur concurrently with the recordation of the subdivision plat known as "Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Subdivision".
If Foothills Parkway and a portion of Mathews Street are vacated, the City will no longer be
responsible for the maintenance, and as such, the roadways can be eliminated from the City’s
street maintenance program. Ongoing maintenance of the area being vacated is the
responsibility of the abutting property owner; however, with redevelopment of Foothills Mall, a
metro district has been established, and maintenance of the vacated area would be assigned to
the metro district.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent
Irrigation Ditch Easement and Right-of-Way to the Larimer County Canal No. 2
Irrigating Company Within the South College Avenue Frontage Road.
The Larimer No. 2 Ditch is currently located on the Foothills Mall site and is to be relocated to
the west of College Avenue in an effort to accommodate the redevelopment of the mall and the
adjacent properties. The proposal is to realign the ditch so that it flows underground in a box
culvert from its current location immediately north of Red Lobster restaurant, within the College
Avenue frontage road and day lighting at its current location immediately south of Monroe
Drive. It should be noted that the additional benefit of realigning the ditch allows a pedestrian
underpass to be constructed in the location where the ditch currently flows under College
Avenue. The pedestrian underpass will allow the redeveloped mall to have excellent pedestrian
connections to the Mason Corridor and MAX transit stations.
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
441
The frontage road along College Avenue immediately adjacent to Markley Motors and Red
Lobster restaurant was dedicated as right-of-way in the 1970's as part of the subdivision that
created those commercial sites. Right-of-way that is dedicated to the City of Fort Collins is
owned and maintained by the City; however, the adjacent property owners have a property right
in the right of way in that if the City ever vacated the right of way, under State law, ownership of
the land would revert back to those adjacent property owners. In order for the City to dedicate
the required easement to the Larimer No. 2 Ditch Company for the relocated ditch, the City must
acquire that underlying property right from Markley Motors and Red Lobster. The City has
acquired the necessary property interests from Markley Motors and is in the process of
acquiring the necessary property interests from Red Lobster. This Ordinance authorizes the City
to convey a permanent easement to the Ditch Company to operate and maintain ditch facilities
under the College Avenue frontage road, once the necessary remainder property interests have
been acquired. It should be noted that the City is not seeking compensation from the ditch
company for the conveyance of the easement because the relocation is occurring as a result of
the redevelopment of the mall.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
Financial Impact to the City
The financial analysis evaluated the impact of the sales tax increment 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 increment pledge. The total anticipated sales tax revenue generated by the Core Rate
between 2014 and 2038 is approximately $149 million with $105 million in sales tax increment
pledged toward the bonds (Transfer and New; shown in yellow), as shown in Table 9. The
Dedicated Rate generates approximately $106 million between 2014 and 2038. The grand total
of anticipated sales tax is approximately $255 million.
Table 9
Comparison of Sales Tax Revenue Generated by the Project, 2014-2038
Slide 23 from the presentation
As indicated previously, the staff presentation includes two public finance scenarios: (a) an
assumed interest rate of 7.00 percent, and (b) an assumed interest rate of 7.25 percent. In both
($ Millions)
Base Transfer New Total Base Transfer New Total
Core Tax - 2.25% 44 35 68 $ 147 44 31 74 $ 149
Dedicated Tax - 1.6% 32 24 49 $ 105 32 22 52 $ 106
Total $ 76 $ 59 $ 117 $ 252 $ 76 $ 53 $ 126 $ 255
May 7th Jan 14th
Sales Tax over 25 Years Sales Tax over 25 Years
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
442
scenarios, the estimated new revenue between 2014 and 2038 is approximately $126 million. In
the 7.00 percent scenario the estimated sales tax increment contribution to debt service is
approximately $9.0 million. The estimated sales tax increment contribution to debt service in the
7.25 percent scenario is estimated at $12.0 million. Therefore, the estimated net new sales tax
revenue received by the City or remitted to the City as released pledged sales tax increment,
after subtracting the anticipated sales tax increment contribution to debt service, will range
between $114 and $117 million or between $4.6 and $4.7 million annually on average. This
amount is up from $108 million in net new revenue estimated in May.
A change in the amount of sales tax transfer accounts for a substantial portion of the estimated
increase in net new sales tax revenue to the City. Adjusting the above revised net new sales tax
revenue estimates to exclude this increase in sales tax transfer reduces the anticipated range to
between $108 and $111 million. This is an even more conservative estimate of anticipated net
new revenue and remains on par with the previously estimated amount of $108 million presented
in May.
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 3). 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 9. 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.
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
443
Table 9
Summary of One-Time and Annual Economic Impacts
Construction (One-Time) One-Time
Jobs 2,905
Earnings $160,096,057
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 10. The total building
permit and plan check fees, capital expansion fees, utility fees, and street oversizing fees will
total approximately $12.4 million.
Table 10
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
If Foothills Parkway and a portion of Mathews Street are vacated, the City will no longer be
responsible for the maintenance, and as such, the roadways can be eliminated from the City’s
street maintenance program. Ongoing maintenance of the area being vacated is the
responsibility of the abutting property owner; however, with redevelopment of Foothills Mall, a
metro district has been established, and maintenance of the vacated area would be assigned to
the metro district.
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
444
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 4.
Carbon Footprint
A carbon footprint analysis was completed for the Mall Redevelopment Project at City Council’s
request, to 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, prepared the
analysis in conjunction with City staff. The footprint analysis was reviewed and refined at a May
3, 2013 mall charrette and was provided to City Council on May 3rd separate from the AIS.
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.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its April 24 and May 1, 2013 meetings, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC)
recommended supporting the Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement. At its October 16,
2013 meeting, the EAC recommended supporting the revised Redevelopment and Reimbursement
Agreement.
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
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
445
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)
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 Commission Meeting, Special Session, April 24, 2013 and May 1,
2013 (Provided under separate cover as part of the City Council Packet on May 2, 2013)
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Local Legislative Affairs Committee, April 26,
2013
Open House for Board and Commission Chairs, April 30, 2013
Economic Advisory Commission Meeting, October 16, 2013
Council Finance Committee Meeting, October 21, 2013
Public Open House, October 30, 2013.”
City Manager Atteberry stated this agreement is the result of years of work with three different
property owners.
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
446
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, stated the
major changes between the project approved February 7, 2013 and this project are slight
reductions in the height of the buildings, improved pedestrian connectivity, reduced retail space
around the perimeter of the mall, and reduced theater space. Kadrich discussed other site
changes with the new project and detailed some of the reasons for redevelopment of the mall,
including that it is a catalyst project for the Midtown Area. She detailed the two Ordinances for
Council consideration.
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, stated this new project plan has about 10% less retail
space than the original project and the opening has been delayed a year. He stated the financial
deal is fundamentally unchanged. The amount of sales tax increment expected to be required to
support the bonds would still be $9 million, assuming a 7% rate. In his opinion, the deal is
fundamentally sound and has a structure designed to protect the City’s balance sheet.
City Manager Atteberry stated Councilmember Cunniff had requested a summary of changes
between was approved on February 7, 2013 and what was approved on December 12, 2013 by
the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted Council has received that summary which includes a
list of fifteen changes between the two versions. Additionally, there was a revised development
agreement in Council’s read-before packet.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a summary of the changes for the benefit of the audience.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Kadrich detailed the changes between the first and second projects approved by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
City Manager Atteberry stated the development agreement was made available to the public and
Council on January 3
rd
.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett reviewed the development agreement changes made in the read-
before packet and since that time.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the tree mitigation plan. Courtney Levingston, Project
Planner, replied changes from the Project Development Plan approved in February include
approximately ten fewer trees due to utility conflicts; however, the number of mitigation tree
inches has been increased.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the termination clause. Beckstead confirmed the June 30,
2014 date is in the agreement for either party to terminate, should the bonds not be issued.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a summary of the development agreement changes made since
January 3
rd
. Beckstead replied with a summary of five changes.
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
447
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, questioned the use of these funds for
the mall given the number of people living in poverty in Fort Collins and the need for affordable
housing, and asked how these populations would benefit from this financial assistance package.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, opposed the mall finance package and stated the sales tax
received by the City would be at the cost of shoppers.
Tim Kenney, 2824 Abbotsford, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Donna Clark, Fort Collins Marriott Director of Sales and Marketing, supported the mall finance
package and redevelopment.
Bob Clancy, 2263 Trestle Road, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Reggie Casselberry, Fort Collins Marriott General Manager, supported the mall finance package
and redevelopment.
Jamey Cutter, Corner Bakery Café, expressed concern regarding an article written in the
Coloradoan about the scraping of his building and noted there are eighteen years remaining on
his lease.
Kerrie Petruso, LensCrafters General Manager, supported the mall finance package.
Lori Radcliff, Fort Collins resident, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Ryan Coffey, Fort Collins resident, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Brooke Tamlin, Palmer Properties Retail Manager, spoke on behalf of Spiro Palmer and
supported the mall finance package.
Mark Driscoll, 1906 Pacific Court, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
John Clarke, 2208 Nancy Gray Avenue, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Mike Pruznick, Fort Collins resident, opposed the mall finance package.
Michael Bello, Fort Collins resident, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, supported the mall redevelopment.
Luke McFetridge, South Fort Collins Business Association, supported the mall finance package
and redevelopment.
Ashley Styles, Fort Collins resident, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
448
Don Butler, Fort Collins resident, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment and
commended Fort Collins citizens on their generosity.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, agreed with Ms. Distaso’s comments and stated this
project makes a joke of the City’s claims of sustainability.
Casey Lipole, 3407 Stover, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Curt Bear, 611 Laporte, supported the mall finance package and redevelopment.
Don Provost, Alberta Development Partners, commended the partnership and and discussed the
community benefits of the project.
Carolyn White, land use counsel for Alberta Development, stated this agreement is essentially
the same as the agreement approved in May 2013 and provides approval for $53 million in
public eligible costs to support a $300 million construction project. She requested Council
support of the finance package.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated she would have preferred a remodel of the existing
mall and described the proposed new mall as an auto-magnet and the cause of an increase in air
pollution. Additionally, Ms. York expressed concern regarding the salaries of mall employees
and the future of Foothills Gateway.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Poppaw noted Council unanimously approved the first mall deal with Alberta
and asked Mr. Provost for his input regarding whether or not he knew the May deal was not
going to go through. Mr. Provost replied he was negotiating in good faith and the slight changes
in the plan are not believed by Alberta to be significant enough to even have this meeting.
Councilmember Poppaw stated this is a 10% decrease in the size of the mall and one year of
revenue has been lost. She asked if Mr. Provost intends to begin the project, assuming this deal
is approved. Mr. Provost replied in the affirmative. Ms. White replied the agreement has to not
only be approved, but also executed, and stated the agreement is the same.
Councilmember Poppaw disagreed and stated the 10% decrease in size and decrease in revenue
for the City make the agreements different.
Councilmember Troxell stated some of Council’s requirements added delays to the project.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Councilmember Troxell understood those delays would cause
the mall opening to be pushed past December 2014. Councilmember Troxell replied the
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
449
agreement that led to the vote in May included additional provisions added by Council which
required additional work and time.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Council was specifically made aware that the mall would not
open in December 2014 when it voted in May. City Manager Atteberry replied in the negative
and stated it was his decision to bring the item before Council again given the extent of the
changes.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how the increase in internet shopping is going to impact this
project. Beckstead replied there is no clear answer for that question; however, malls are still
opening and relevant. He stated this project will provide a vibrant mall to the city.
Councilmember Poppaw requested input regarding the Corner Bakery Café issue. City Manager
Atteberry replied he also learned about the potential demolition of the building from the
Coloradoan. Mr. Provost replied this tenant, among others, still has a lease and the information
printed in the Coloradoan did not come from Alberta, who has no intention of demolishing the
building.
Councilmember Poppaw requested information regarding the average wage for mall employees.
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, replied that figure is part of the economic impact
analysis.
Councilmember Poppaw requested information regarding the projected loss of revenue due to the
later opening date. Beckstead replied there is lost revenue at the front end; however, the
economic model instead has the last year falling off as the lost revenue; in the metro district, that
figure is a little over $8 million. However, that money is not truly lost as the model is focused on
a fixed period of time. He estimated the sales tax revenue which would have been gained in
2014-2015 with the original opening date is about $3.5-4 million less that it will be with the later
date.
Birks stated the economic impact analysis shows jobs from the ongoing operations of the mall
will have an average salary of $19,700.
Councilmember Poppaw asked what the average monthly rental rate will be for the housing units
in the project. Mr. Provost replied the housing products are still being developed and do not yet
have established rents; however, rents will likely be at the higher end of the market.
Councilmember Poppaw expressed concern about the lack of affordable workforce housing in
the area.
Councilmember Campana noted an affordable housing impact fee could be backdated so as to
apply to this project.
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
450
Councilmember Cunniff asked about an article indicating a request for an additional $13.7
million in fee reductions, or waivers, following the signing of the May agreement. Beckstead
replied there was a request made in June or July for an additional $13-14 million of public
improvements for blight remediation; the City met with Alberta in August and declined to offer
any additional incentives.
Councilmember Cunniff asked who covers the other half of the lost property tax and URA TIF
revenue if the housing units are not built. Beckstead replied that is the City’s risk in this deal.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the wetland mitigation ratio for the canal relocation. Rick
Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services, replied he would calculate the ratio.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the areas offering community activities, such as ice skating, are
still part of the project. Mr. Provost replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the ability for children to do activities outdoors will be lost
with the relocation of the Youth Activities Center. Bob Adams, Recreation Director, replied
most of the City’s activities are currently located inside the facility and he does not anticipate
much change between the locations. Mr. Provost discussed the potential use of the east lawn
area for youth at the Center.
Councilmember Campana asked what happens to the supplemental reserve fund when the bonds
are no longer outstanding. Beckstead replied the fund is given back to the revenue sources that
contributed to the fund.
Councilmembers Campana and Cunniff had a brief discussion related to the risk to the City
created by the finance package.
Councilmember Cunniff discussed the net sales of the mall which suffered a precipitous decline
following 2000 and noted the quality of the mall management moving forward is critical.
Councilmember Campana discussed the agreement’s clause requiring certain landscaping and
other standards to be maintained.
Councilmember Overbeck asked how the June 30, 2014 termination date was developed.
Beckstead replied it is an extension of the date in the May agreement.
Councilmember Overbeck asked how quickly bonds could be issued. Beckstead replied a late
spring timeframe is anticipated.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2014-004.
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
451
Councilmember Troxell commended the public-private partnership aspects of the agreement and
the benefits the project will have for the Midtown area.
Councilmember Campana thanked Alberta for its investment in the Fort Collins community and
commended staff work and the patience of the community. He stated the deal is designed to
minimize the City’s risk and encouraged the community to shop at the mall.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would not support the finance package as the cost is high and
brick and mortar shopping is declining. He expressed concern regarding the mall aesthetics and
the ability to follow-up on certain requirements of the agreement. Additionally, he stated he can
no longer support the use of 100% TIF and stated this deal is not what Fort Collins citizens
expect.
Councilmember Overbeck stated the risks are greater than the rewards for this assistance
package given the possibility of interest rate increases. He expressed concern regarding the
location of the Youth Activity Center and retail closures. He also expressed concern regarding
traffic and air pollution.
Councilmember Poppaw stated an opportunity was lost with respect to including sustainability
staff members and investigating the impacts of the project on lower wage earners. She stated she
would support the motion but stated the package should have been better.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted the Fort Collins Downtown was once in a similar situation as is the
mall currently and discussed the use of the Downtown Development Authority. He commended
the conservative approach taken by staff in developing the agreement and finance package. He
suggested a retrospective study of the project upon completion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Horak, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays:
Cunniff and Overbeck.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a summary of Resolution 2014-005. City Manager Atteberry
replied this item extends the prior agreement with Larimer County addressing some of its
concerns regarding impacts.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2014-005.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion in order to enhance the partnership
between the City and County.
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
452
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 008-2014, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated this is a routine item which makes sense for the project.
Councilmember Cunniff agreed with Councilmember Troxell.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 009-2014, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell noted this item is critical to be completed as soon as possible.
City Manager Atteberry stated Rick Richter is available to answer the previous wetland
mitigation question. Richter stated there is a total of 1.5 affected areas which have been
classified as low-quality existing wetlands. Those wetlands will be mitigated at a one to one
ratio, likely in the Poudre River area with a higher quality replacement.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Poppaw, Overbeck, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like the City Manager to develop a process for
monitoring, reporting, assessment, and oversight of this project and other economic development
activities for performance. City Manager Atteberry replied he will report to Council regarding
that structure.
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
January 14, 2014
453
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Mgr
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for
the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of College and Mountain
Avenues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates unanticipated revenues
in the amount of $19,839, received in excess of previously appropriated funds, for the Avery Building Restoration
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 010, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 52
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Mgr
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for
the Exterior Preservation and Reconstruction of the Avery Building at the Intersection of College and
Mountain Avenues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate unanticipated revenues in the amount of $19,839, received in
excess of previously appropriated funds, for the Avery Building Restoration project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2011, the City received a State Historic Fund grant for the restoration and reconstruction of the Avery
Building located at the intersection of College and Mountain Avenues. The project included exterior
restoration and rehabilitation of the sandstone building.
The City agreed to sponsor the grant and manage the funds. Appropriations totaling $650,270 have been
approved ($430,270 with Ordinance No. 043, 2011 and $220,000 with Ordinance No. 036, 2012). At the time
work was completed, total project costs were $670,109. Being as only $650,270 had been initially available
and appropriated for the work, the property owner was asked to provide additional private funds, which it did
to cover the additional costs. An ordinance approving appropriation of the additional unanticipated revenues
of $19,839 is now needed.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The City did not directly participate financially in the project; however, Community Development and
Neighborhood Services (CDNS) staff acted as grant administrator. Contributions to the total project cost of
$670,109 were made by the State Historic Fund ($215,135) and the property owner Avery Building LLC
($454,974).
The Avery Building exterior preservation and reconstruction has had positive financial effects on the local
economy. The project has generated sales tax revenue from materials and services purchased locally, and
the improved property’s higher assessed value will increase property taxes. Studies by Clarion Associates of
Colorado, LLC, show that for each $1 in grant related costs, there is an economic return of $6.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (1661 : SR 010 Avery Bldg Appropriation)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The restoration and rehabilitation of the Avery Building supports the City’s goal of sustainability. As with all
historic preservation projects, this project maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, and
reduces wastes in landfills from demolition costs. Historic buildings are traditionally designed to be energy
efficient, with many sustainable features that respond to climate and site. When effectively restored and
reused, these features allow for substantial energy savings. Additionally, the Avery Building exterior
preservation and reconstruction project will preserve an important and interest aspect of Fort Collins history.
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment2.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (1661 : SR 010 Avery Bldg Appropriation)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 010, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR THE EXTERIOR PRESERVATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE AVERY BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLLEGE AND
MOUNTAIN AVENUES
WHEREAS, the Avery Building Restoration and Reconstruction project (the “Project”)
includes the exterior restoration and rehabilitation of the original brick, stone masonry, wood,
windows, and storefronts along College Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been an ongoing, high visibility project that has provided
both direct and indirect economic benefits to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff is
responsible for administering all grant/cash match funds on behalf of the property owner, but to
date there has been no direct financial obligation by the City; and
WHEREAS, between 2011 and 2012, the City appropriated $650,270 in combined grant
funding from the Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical Fund and private fund
contributions by the property owner, Avery Building LLC, for the Avery Building Restoration
project; and
WHEREAS, total Project costs are $670,109, which requires another $19,839 to be
appropriated in order to fully pay for the work associated with the Project; and
WHEREAS, the additional funds to cover the final project costs have been provided by
the property owner and deposited in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of $19,839 in additional
Project funding will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to 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 NINETEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY NINE
DOLLARS ($19,839) for the exterior preservation and reconstruction of the Avery Building.
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 010, 2014 (1661 : SR 010 Avery Bldg Appropriation)
- 2 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment2.2: Ordinance No. 010, 2014 (1661 : SR 010 Avery Bldg Appropriation)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Melissa Funk, Victim Services Supervisor
John Hutto, Police Chief
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General
Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, appropriates grant funds in the
amount of $32,000 received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement Board to
help fund services provided by the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim advocacy
services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family members.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 011, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 57
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Melissa Funk, Victim Services Supervisor
John Hutto, Police Chief
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund
for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to fund the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim advocacy
services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family members. The
Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit has been awarded a 12-month grant in the amount of
$32,000 for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, by the Eighth Judicial District Victim
Assistance and Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds
will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during
weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. These funds will also pay for a portion of the
operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the
community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Victim Services Unit has received funding from the V.A.L.E. grant since the inception of the program in
1996. Services have been provided to thousands of victims and their family members who have become
victims of violent crime in the community. Council has approved appropriations of the grant revenue every
year. Services to the community would be drastically cut without this grant award.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The City has received a grant in the amount of $32,000 from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and
Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund victim services activities. This grant requires no local cash
match.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment3.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (1665 : SR 011 Victim Services Appropriation)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 011, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR
THE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES VICTIM SERVICES UNIT
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant in the amount of
$32,000 (the “Grant”) for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 by the Eighth
Judicial District Victims and Law Enforcement (“VALE”) Board to support the Fort Collins
Police Services Victim Services Unit (“Victim Services”); and
WHEREAS, Victim Services provides crisis intervention, resources and referral services
to victims of violent crime as well as other traumatic situations; and
WHEREAS, the Grant will be used to fund a part of the salary for the victim advocate
who provides crisis intervention services, and to partially pay for operational expenses needed to
provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins permits the
City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal
year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all
previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and
anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Grant from the VALE
Board to support Victim Services will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Police
Services fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in
that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the
General Fund the sum of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($32,000) for expenditure in
the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 011, 2014 (1665 : SR 011 Victim Services Appropriation)
- 2 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment3.2: Ordinance No. 011, 2014 (1665 : SR 011 Victim Services Appropriation)
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2014, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Contract
with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas
Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, approve a grant contract with
History Colorado and appropriate unanticipated revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for historic building
restoration. The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $141,877 from the State Historical Fund to fund
71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the
Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed. The City also received a $43,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable
Trust to provide most of the 29% in funds necessary to match the State funding. Natural Areas fund monies
will be used to fund the remaining $14,950 necessary for the project. Information requested at First Reading
regarding the use of Natural Areas Funds for historic preservation has been provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Questions Related to Spending Natural Areas Funds on Historic Presevation (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (PDF)
4. Ordinance No. 013, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 61
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2014, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Contract
with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas
Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
The purpose of this item is to approve a Grant Contract with History Colorado and Appropriate Unanticipated
Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund for historic building restoration. The State of Colorado awarded the City a
grant of $141,877 from the State Historical Fund to fund 71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 to restore two
historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed. This is the
second grant awarded by the State for historic preservation at Bobcat Ridge. The first grant was for the
restoration of a pioneer barn and log chicken shed, which have been fully restored. To accept this grant and
proceed with the project, the City must enter into a contract with History Colorado, a 501(c)(3) operated by the
Colorado Department of Higher Education. The contract requires a twenty-year covenant on the property
surrounding the poultry and equipment sheds, which states that the City will maintain the buildings, once
restored, for twenty years and will not alter anything on the property without express written permission of
History Colorado.
The City also received a $43,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 29% in funds
necessary to match the State funding. Natural Areas fund monies will be used to fund the remaining $14,950
necessary for the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area is rich in cultural resources as well as natural resources. With generous donations
from the Pulliam Charitable Trust, the Natural Areas Department has already restored a historic cabin, a
calving shed, an 1888 pioneer barn, and a log chicken shed; published a book and a booklet on the history of
the Bobcat Ridge area; and hired education staff to lead many cultural interpretation programs each year for
hundreds of people of all ages. Visitors enjoy learning about the early pioneers in the area and the farming
and ranching history on Bobcat Ridge. They enjoy seeing the historic buildings and learning about how the
early pioneers worked and lived. The Pulliam Charitable Trust funded the preparation of the application for
historic designation and also funded the preparation of this grant application and the previous grant
application. Carol Tunner, retired City Historic Preservationist, was hired to prepare the grant applications and
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment4.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
serve as the grant administrator for the project. Ethan Cozzens from the Operation Services Department will
serve as the Project Manager.
Staff will submit a request for proposals in 2014 to select an architect/contractor team to prepare plans for and
restore the two historic structures, with targeted completion by the end of 2014. Staff and the contractor are
required by the State Historic Fund to fully document each phase of the restoration process. “Before” pictures
of both structures are attached (Attachment 2). Once the project is complete, staff will provide “after” pictures
to Council.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The $141,877 grant will fund 71% of the estimated cost of $199,827 for the project. The 29% local cash
match required by the state grant, $57,950, is being funded with a $43,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable
Trust and $14,950 from the Natural Areas Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There will be no environmental impacts. The structures will be restored in their current location, requiring
minimal grading around the perimeter of each structure to improve drainage away from the structures. The
limited area of vegetation disturbed by grading and by restoration efforts will be restored immediately upon
completion of the project.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its December 11, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the State Grant Contract.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The preservation, restoration and interpretation of these historic structures is per the Bobcat Ridge Natural
Area Management Plan, adopted administratively in 2005 after thorough public review.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bobcat Ridge NA Location Map (PDF)
2. Bobcat Phase II Historic Preservation Photos (PDF)
3. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Minutes, December 11, 2013 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment4.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
Natural Areas Department
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416.2815
970.416.2211 - fax
fcgov.com/naturalareas
To: City Council
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
CC: Wendy Williams, Assistant City Manager
Marty Heffernan, Community Services Director
From: John Stokes, Director Natural Areas Department
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager
Date: January 29, 2014
RE: Questions Related to Spending Natural Areas Funds on Historic Preservation
Council Member Cunniff asked the following questions:
1. Does the ballot language for the Natural Areas designated sales tax allow spending to
preserve historic structures on Natural Areas property?
2. If not what policy allows Natural Areas to spend money on historic preservation?
3. Do we have or do we need to have a policy that states how much of the Natural Areas
revenues may be spent on historic preservation?
Answers to Question 1 - Does the ballot language for the Natural Areas designated sales tax
allow spending to preserve historic structures on Natural Areas property?
Natural Areas is primarily funded by two designated sales taxes: the City - Open Space Yes! ¼
Cent Sales Tax (OSY); and the County Help Preserve Open Space ¼ Cent Sales Tax (HPOS.
The OSY ballot language and resolution is silent on the subject of preserving, maintaining, or
removing historic structures or other cultural resources; as it is on other aspects of owning and
managing properties. It does set restrictions on spending: 80% or more of the funds must be
spent on Land Conservation Activities as defined and 20% or less may be spent on Operations
and Maintenance Activities as defined. Any expense related to restoration of historic structures
could come from the 20% of OSY funds allowed for Operations and Maintenance.
The HPOS ballot language and resolution allows Fort Collins to use the funds to implement all
aspects of its Natural Areas Plan. The current edition of the Natural Areas Plan is known as the
“Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan” (the Plan) adopted by Council in 2004. (It
will soon be replaced by the “Natural Areas Master Plan” which will be proposed for Council
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment4.2: Questions Related to Spending Natural Areas Funds on Historic Presevation (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
2
adoption later this year.) The Plan is not explicit with respect to historic and cultural resources
with the exception that it recognizes the adaptive reuse of historic buildings at Nix Natural Area
to house Natural Areas staff office and to meet equipment storage needs. The historic Nix farm
was acquired for this specific purpose. In 2003 the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation
Commission awarded Natural Areas the annual “Friend of Preservation Award” for its efforts in
restoring the historic farm structures.
The Plan also states that public improvements will be built and maintained to “accommodate
visitors through…public buildings…” The structures at Bobcat Ridge are available to the public
to observe and, in some cases, to enter and actively use as a gathering place for interpretation and
education.
Given these provisions of the Plan, staff believes that expenses related to restoration of historic
structures can come from HPOS funds as well as the 20% of OSY dedicated to operations and
maintenance.
Answers to Question 2 - If not what policy allows Natural Areas to spend money on historic
preservation?
In addition to the Plan, Plan Fort Collins (the City’s comprehensive plan) offers the most policy
guidance to Natural Areas in terms of historic preservation. The following two principles in the
policy adopted by Council best articulate Natural Areas responsibilities as a property owner:
Principle LIV16: The quality of live in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the
preservation of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and
development of the community.
Principle LIV17: Historically and architecturally significant buildings Downtown and
throughout the community will be valued and preserved.
The Master Plan for Bobcat Ridge Natural Area is the first Natural Areas planning document to
specifically address Cultural Resources. This plan makes specific recommendations as to the
preservation of historic resources. The plan recommends that the two buildings that are to be
restored by the State Historic Fund grant, the poultry building and the equipment shed, should be
left as is for interpretation purposes. It was later decided to restore these and other buildings
when the Pulliam Family offered to fund the applications for historic landmark designation and
for the grants and to provide the matching funds for the grants.
Answers to Question 3 - Do we have or do we need to have a policy that states how much of
the Natural Areas revenues may be spent on historic preservation?
Staff believes it would be helpful to have a Cultural Resources policy and plans to include one in
the “Natural Areas Master Plan” which will be proposed for adoption by City Council later this
year. The policy could provide guidance as to appropriate levels of Natural Areas revenues that
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment4.2: Questions Related to Spending Natural Areas Funds on Historic Presevation (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
3
may be spent on historic preservation; research of cultural resources; and, interpretation of
cultural resources.
Background Information
Natural Areas staff consults with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Landmark
Preservation staff, Landmark Preservation Commission, and consultants to adequately assess and
evaluate the cultural resources on Natural Areas sites to determine appropriate preservation
measures. It has been the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board’s and Natural Areas staff’s
position to minimize the use of Natural Areas funds to restore historic structures.
Council approved the contract with the State Historic Fund in 2011 for the first phase of the
Bobcat Ridge historic preservation work authorizing the use of Natural Areas funds for historic
preservation. The total cost of Phase I was $124,523. The City received a State grant of $93,392;
a grant from the Pulliam Family Charitable Trust for $24,000; and Natural Areas funds were
used to fund the $7,131 difference.
Council is now being asked to approve the State Historic Fund grant of $141,877 to fund 71% of
a second phase of historic preservation at Bobcat Ridge, with a total cost of $199,827, and again
authorize the use of Natural Areas funds for the purpose of historic preservation. The 29% in
matching funds is being funded largely by a $43,000 grant from the Pulliam Family Charitable
Trust and the remaining $14,950 from Natural Areas funds.
Natural Areas staff believes that spending $22,000 to achieve almost $325,000 in historic
preservation is an appropriate and efficient use of Natural Areas funds. For perspective, $22,000
is 0.24% of the Natural Areas annual budget. No funds from the 80% of OSY revenues restricted
to Land Conservation Activities were used to support this expense.
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment4.2: Questions Related to Spending Natural Areas Funds on Historic Presevation (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 012, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A GRANT CONTRACT WITH
HISTORY COLORADO, THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR FUNDS TO
RESTORE TWO HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA
WHEREAS, in 1990 the Colorado Constitution was amended to permit limited gaming in
three Colorado cities; and
WHEREAS, the limited gaming amendment also created the State Historical Fund (the
“Fund”) and directed that a portion of gaming tax revenues be distributed through a competitive
process for historic preservation projects throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, grants from the Fund are administered through History Colorado, the
Colorado Historical Society (the “Historical Society”); and
WHEREAS, in 2013 City Natural Areas staff applied for a grant from the Historical
Society to help pay for restoration of two historic structures, a poultry shed and an equipment
shed (the “Project”), at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Historical Society has awarded the City a grant in the amount of
$141,877 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of the Project is $199,827, with additional funding
coming from the Pulliam Charitable Trust and the Natural Areas program; and
WHEREAS, to receive the grant funding the City must enter into a Grant Contract with
the Historical Society; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements, such as a
grant agreement, to provide any function, service or facility, under Article II, Section 16 of the
Charter of the City of Fort Collins and Section 29-1-203, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Grant Contract is on file and available for review in the office
of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the Grant Contract is a 20-year covenant running
with the land that would prohibit the City from permitting or undertaking any construction,
alteration, movement, relocation or remodeling or any other activity on the property where the
Project is located that would adversely affect the structural soundness of the property or encroach
on the open land area of the property without the express written permission of the Historical
Society; and
WHEREAS, the Natural Area property affected by this covenant would be all or a
portion of the property described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference
(the “Property”); and
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
- 2 -
WHEREAS, placing a restrictive covenant on the Property that is enforceable by the
State is the equivalent of conveying an interest in real property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the 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 Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best
interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council approve the Grant Contract as
described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that placing a restrictive covenant on the
Property as required by the Historical Society in order to receive grant funding is in the best
interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into the Grant Contract with
the Historical Society obligating the City to use the $141,877 in grant proceeds from the Fund
for restoration of historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, including the covenant
described above, in substantially the form of agreement as is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, and that the terms of the Grant Contract are approved together with such other terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be
necessary and appropriate to protect the best interests of the City.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
- 3 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment4.3: Ordinance No. 012, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 013, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE
NATURAL AREAS FUND GRANT PROJECT TO RESTORE TWO HISTORIC
STRUCTURES AT BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA
WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a Colorado Historical Fund grant in the amount
of $141,877 which will fund 71% of the cost of restoring two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge
Natural Area, the Poultry Shed and the Equipment Shed; and
WHEREAS, the Grant Contract requires a 29% local project match in the amount of
$57,950, for a total estimated project cost of $199,827; and
WHEREAS, the City has also received a grant in the amount of $43,000 from the Pulliam
Charitable Trust which will cover most of the required match; and
WHEREAS, the remaining matching funds in the amount of $14,950 are available from
existing appropriations in the Natural Areas Fund operating budget; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2013, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the Colorado Historical Fund Grant Contract; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the
total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous
appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the grant funds as
described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Natural Areas Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during
any fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 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 to another fund, 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 Natural Areas Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($184,877) for the grant project to restore
two historic buildings at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment4.4: Ordinance No. 013, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
- 2 -
Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FOURTEEN THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($14,950) is hereby authorized for transfer from the
Natural Areas Fund operating budget to the grant project to restore two historic buildings at
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area and appropriated therein.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment4.4: Ordinance No. 013, 2014 (1662 : SR 012 013 Bobcat Ridge Grant)
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2014, Waiving Certain Fees for Fort Collins Housing Authority's
Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project and Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Pay
Specified Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, authorizes certain development
and capital improvement expansion fee waivers to be provided to the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA)
for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive housing project. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of
projects for which the FCHA could request fee waivers and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects
are those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for persons whose income falls at or below 30% of
the adjusted median income of all City residents. FCHA is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $274,199
for this housing project. This is a permissible type of project for a fee waiver request.
Changes to the Ordinance on Second Reading are to fix an error in Section 3 that referred to the funds being
appropriated rather than the fees being waived, and to clarify that the appropriated funds are to replace the
waived Capital Improvement Expansion Fees. Additional information about the ownership structure of Redtail
Ponds was requested at First Reading and has been provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ownership Structure of Redtail Ponds (PDF)
Packet Pg. 75
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2014, Waiving Certain Fees for Fort Collins Housing Authority's Redtail
Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project and Appropriating General Fund Reserves to Pay Specified
Fees.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to ask City Council to determine whether certain development and capital
improvement expansion fee waivers will be provided to the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) for the
Redtail Ponds permanent supportive housing project. In March 2013, City Council limited the types of projects
for which the FCHA could request fee waivers and made these waivers discretionary. Eligible projects are
those constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for persons whose income falls at or below 30% of the
adjusted median income of all City residents. FCHA is requesting fee waivers in the amount of $274,199 for
this housing project. This is a permissible type of project for a fee waiver request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital improvement
expansion fees for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive affordable housing project as allowed by City
Code, the Land Use Code and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Fort
Collins Housing Authority dated July 3, 2013 (see Attachment 1 for waiver request). FCHA is a partial owner
of the project.
Under Colorado statutes and City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions dating back to 1988, projects of
housing authorities are exempt from some taxes and fees. For many years, the City has waived building
permit and development review fees and some capital expansion fees for projects of the FCHA. In March
2013, City Council amended its policies on fee waivers for affordable housing to allow for more discretion in
determining the kinds of housing authority sponsored projects for which City fees should be waived. By
adopting Ordinance No. 037, 2013, City Council limited the types of projects for which the FCHA could
request fee waivers. These are projects that are constructed for homeless or disabled persons, or for persons
whose income falls at or below 30% of the adjusted median income of all City residents. Furthermore, these
waivers will be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that the proposed waiver will not
jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be
funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought.
Redtail Ponds is a mixed-income 60 unit development with 40 units designed as permanent supportive
housing designed to meet the needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans, and other
low-income individuals whose income is 30% or less of the adjusted median income of Fort Collins residents.
(The other 20 units are for residents whose income fall between 30% and 50% Area Median Income). In
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment5.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1664 : SR 014 Redtail Ponds Fee Waivers)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
2013, 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) for an individual is an annual income of $15,950 and 50% of AMI is
$26,550. This project is designed to house the City’s most vulnerable populations. The project will be located
at 5046 Fossil Boulevard (Attachment 2).
This project fits the definition of a project eligible for fee waivers as established in City Code, the Land Use
Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement (Attachment 3). The FCHA seeks waivers for the fees
associated with 40 of the 60 units that are reserved for these highly vulnerable populations.
Because 40 of the 60 units at Redtail Ponds are eligible for fee waivers, 66% of the total fees is what FCHA is
requesting be waived. The fees for this project are:
City Fees Subject to Waiver Under Agreement
Fee Amount Waiver Paid by FCHA
Development Review Fees $ 19,847 $ 13,230 $ 6,617
Building Fees 39,579 26,383 13,196
Capital Impact Expansion Fees 350,705 233,780 116,925
Storm Drainage Dev. Review Fees 1,209 806 403
TOTAL $ 411,340 $ 274,199 $ 137,141
Funding for this $12.6 million project is a combination of city and state grants, Low Income Housing Tax
Credits, owner equity, and conventional financing. Current pro formas rely upon the waivers to make this
project successful.
The City has long been committed to affordable housing, and the need for financial support is clearly
demonstrated in the increase in the number of applications for local and federal funds and the long waiting
lists for available affordable housing in the city. Permanent supportive housing is a national best practice
proven to end chronic homelessness and save taxpayer dollars on emergency related costs associated with
homeless persons. Developing a permanent supportive housing program is a goal of the City’s non-profit
partner Homeward 2020 in its 10 year plan to end homelessness. This project addresses Priority #1 in the
Fort Collins Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: to increase the inventory of affordable rental housing units,
and Priority #3: to increase housing and facilities for people with special needs. The location of this project will
support Transfort’s MAX Transit System and South Transit Center to supply the residents’ transportation
needs.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
For the Redtail Ponds project, the potential financial impact of a fee waiver on City funds is $274,199. If this
fee waiver is granted by City Council, $233,781 will need to be covered by General Fund resources. See
Attachment 4 for details.
Revenue Waived to be Paid by General Fund
Capital Expansion Fund $ 88,735
Street Oversizing Fund 84,452
Neighborhood Parkland Fund 60,594
General Fund Backfill Total $ 233,781
The waiver of these fees will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the
capital improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable housing options
to lower income people, more of Fort Collins' work force can live in the community instead of being forced to
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment5.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1664 : SR 014 Redtail Ponds Fee Waivers)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 3
live outside the community and commute into the city for work. This helps reduce traffic congestion and,
thus, improves air quality. The construction of this project will meet the standards of the Enterprise Green
Communities, which roughly equates to a Silver LEED Certification level. The location of this project will
promote the use of public transportation by the Redtail Ponds residents.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its January 9, 2014, meeting, the Affordable Housing Board unanimously voted to support the provision of
waivers to this much needed affordable housing project. The public was given an opportunity to comment on
FCHA's request at that time. See Attachment 5.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fee Waiver Request (PDF)
2. Location maps (PDF)
3. City Fee Waiver IGA, July 3, 2013 (PDF)
4. Final City Fees and Waivers (PDF)
5. Affordable Housing Board Recommendation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment5.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1664 : SR 014 Redtail Ponds Fee Waivers)
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment5.2: Ownership Structure of Redtail Ponds (1664 : SR 014 Redtail Ponds Fee Waivers)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 014, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WAIVING CERTAIN FEES FOR FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY’S REDTAIL
PONDS PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT AND APPROPRIATING
GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO PAY SPECIFIED FEES
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Housing Authority (“FCHA”) was formed by the City
Council in 1970 pursuant to the authority contained in C.R.S.§ 29-4-101, et seq., for the purpose
of providing affordable, safe and sanitary housing in the City that is within the means of families
of low or moderate income; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 065, 1999, the City Council exempted from
the imposition of the City’s capital improvement expansion fees the land development projects
of housing authorities formed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 29-4-101, et seq., and
specified various other City fees from which such projects are also to be exempted; and
WHEREAS, the financial impact of such fee waivers on the City can be substantial,
depending upon the size of the project that is exempted, and whether the lost fee revenues need
to be replaced by the City; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 37, 2013 (the
“2013 Ordinance”), which made amendments to the City Code and Land Use Code limiting the
types of projects for which FCHA could request fee waivers, and specifying that those waivers
are to be granted at the discretion of City Council upon a determination that proposed waivers
will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of capital
improvements to be funded by the fees; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Ordinance also authorized and directed the Mayor to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement between the City and FCHA documenting FCHA’s intent to limit
future fee waiver applications to affordable housing projects that meet the criteria established by
such Ordinance (the “Intergovernmental Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement was executed on July 3, 2013; and
WHEREAS, FCHA is seeking the waiver of certain development and capital
improvement expansion fees for the Redtail Ponds permanent supportive affordable housing
project, a proposed mixed-income 60-unit development designed as permanent supportive
housing to meet the needs of homeless individuals with disabilities, homeless veterans, and other
low-income individuals (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, FCHA is requesting waivers equal to 66% of the total fees for the Project
because 40 of the 60 units are eligible for such fee waivers; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Ordinance states that the City Council can waive, by ordinance,
fees that would otherwise be imposed for an affordable housing project wholly or partially
Packet Pg. 80
- 2 -
owned by a housing authority only if the City Council determines that: (1) the proposed project
is intended to house homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined ty the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or households with an annual income that does not
exceed 30% of the area median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-
Loveland metropolitan statistical area, as published by HUD; and (2) the proposed waiver will
not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital
improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought; and
WHEREAS, the Project would be partially owned by FCHA, as FCHA is the sole
member of a limited liability company that has a 1% ownership interest in a limited liability,
limited partnership that will own the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project fits the definition of a project eligible for fee waivers under the
City Code and Land Use Code as amended by the 2013 Ordinance, and the Intergovernmental
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the requested fee waiver will not jeopardize
the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital improvements to be
funded by the fees for which the waiver is sought; and
WHEREAS, the Project also addresses Priority #1 in the Fort Collins Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan, which is to increase the inventory of affordable rental housing units, and Priority
#3, which is to increase housing and facilities for people with special needs; and
WHEREAS, if City Council grants the fee waivers, FCHA is requesting the appropriation
of $233,780 from General Fund reserves to cover the feeCapital Improvement Expansion Fee
revenue waived; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to
appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be
available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not
previously appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the Project is intended to house
homeless or disabled persons, as such terms are defined ty the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), or households with an annual income that does not exceed 30% of the area
median income for the applicable household size in the Fort Collins-Loveland metropolitan
statistical area, as published by HUD.
Section 2. That the City Council further finds that the fee waiver requested by FCHA
will not jeopardize the financial interests of the City or the timely construction of the capital
improvements to be funded by the fees for which a waiver is sought.
Packet Pg. 81
- 3 -
Section 3. That the City Council hereby approves the waiver of $233,781$274,199 in
fees that would otherwise be payable to the City upon the issuance of building permits for the
Project, consisting of:
Capital Expansion Fund $ 88,735
Street Oversizing Fund 84,452
Neighborhood Parkland Fund 60,594
Total $ 233,781
Development Review Fees $ 13,230
Building Permit Fees 26,383
Capital Improvement Expansion Fees 233,780
Storm Drainage Dev. Review Fees 806
Total $274,199
Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the
General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE DOLLARS ($233,781) to cover the approved, waived revenue
feesCapital Improvement Expansion Fees for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing
Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 82
- 4 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 83
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager
Daylan Figgs, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction
Easement and Right-of-Way on Long View Farm Open Space to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, conveys a right-of-way and
temporary construction easement to the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Colorado Department of
Transportation has requested to acquire in fee approximately 0.07 acres of right-of-way along with a temporary
construction easement on Long View Farm Open Space, as part of the Hwy 392/US 287 Intersection project.
The easement and right-of-way acquisition is needed to replace an existing stormwater pipe with a large box
culvert. The project will impact a small section of a low value wetland on the property that will be mitigated
through the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund.
On January 23, 2014, the Larimer County Open Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously to approve this
easement. At its December 11, 2013, regular meeting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
unanimously voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 84
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager
Daylan Figgs, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Temporary Construction
Easement and Right-of-Way on Long View Farm Open Space to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to convey a right-of-way and temporary construction easement to the Colorado
Department of Transportation. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested to acquire
in fee approximately 0.07 acres of right-of-way along with a temporary construction easement on Long View
Farm Open Space, as part of the Hwy 392/US 287 Intersection project. The easement and right-of-way
acquisition is needed to replace an existing stormwater pipe with a large box culvert. The project will impact a
small section of a low value wetland on the property that will be mitigated through the Natural Areas wetland
mitigation fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Long View Farm Open Space (Long View) was jointly acquired by Larimer County (the County), the City of
Fort Collins (Fort Collins), and the City of Loveland (Loveland) in 1997 as a community separator open space
property. The property was historically in dryland agriculture and remains in the same land use.
The County is the majority owner of the property and, per an IGA, is the managing entity for the daily
operations. However, Fort Collins and Loveland City Codes require any conveyance of a property right that
the Cities hold to be approved by their respective City Councils.
CDOT approached the County in early 2013 as part of the planning process for the redevelopment of the Hwy
392/US 287 Intersection project. (See Location Map and Easement Detail) The project will include the
addition of turn lanes, sidewalks and improved stormwater conveyance at the intersection. Long View will be
affected by the replacement of an existing stormwater pipe with a larger box culvert in the same location in
the extreme northeast corner of the property. CDOT will acquire a 3,098 sq ft right-of-way in fee, and a 1,328
sq ft temporary construction easement in this corner of the property to allow construction and the placement
of the new box culvert and outfall.
The project will remove approximately 0.10 acre of designated wetlands in the easement area, essentially
where the existing pipe outfall releases stormwater onto Long View. The wetlands have been assessed by
Natural Area staff and have been found to be of low quality, with cattails and other non-native species
dominating the site. The remaining area to be impacted by the project is dominated by smooth brome and will
be reseeded with native seed mix.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment6.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
Legacy Land Trust (LLT) holds a conservation easement on Long View. In addition, the acquisition of the
property in 1997 was partially funded by GOCO funding. Both entities require their respective approvals
before a portion of a property can be conveyed to a different entity. The County is taking the lead in
obtaining approvals from LLT and GOCO for the required approvals and amendments for this project.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The value of the temporary easement and the fee right-of-way acquisition is valued at $1,270. As a 33%
owner of Long View, Fort Collins will receive $419.
The County is the managing entity for Long View, and is the main point of contact for the majority of the
project details. Therefore, Natural Areas staff will not bill the hours associated with this project to CDOT and
will not require the $1500 application fee. The impact to the wetlands caused by the project will be mitigated
with a $9,750 payment to the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The construction of the box culvert will remove approximately 0.10 acre of designated wetlands on Long
View. Natural Areas staff has surveyed the wetland to assess its value for rare flora or fauna and found it to
be of low quality. CDOT has worked with the City to negotiate mitigation of the wetland loss which will be
placed into the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund to mitigate and/or restore high value wetlands off-site in
the Natural Areas system.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its December 11, 2013, regular meeting the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board unanimously voted
to recommend adoption of the Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map (PDF)
2. CDOT Easements Detail (PDF)
3. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Meeting Minute, December 11, 2013 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment6.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 016, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ON LONG VIEW FARM OPEN SPACE
TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the City, Larimer County and the City of Loveland are joint owners of a
parcel of real property acquired in 1997 known as Long View Farm Open Space, which is
described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”);
and
WHEREAS, as part of its State Highway 392/U.S. Highway 287 Interchange Project (the
“Project”) the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) is requesting the conveyance
of two interests in the Property: approximately .07 acres of fee simple right-of-way as described
on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Right-of-Way”), and
a temporary construction easement as described on Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference (the “TCE”); and
WHEREAS, the Project will add turn lanes and sidewalks and improve stormwater
conveyance at the intersection, which is the southern boundary of the City; and
WHEREAS, while the County is the majority owner of the Property and the managing
entity for daily operations, City Council authorization is required under the City Code for the
conveyance of any interest in real property owned by the City; and
WHEREAS, CDOT will pay compensation of $1,270 for the TCE and the Right-of-Way,
of which the City, as a 33% owner of the Property, will receive $419; and
WHEREAS, CDOT will not be required to pay the City an application fee or pay for
Natural Areas staff’s time on this Project as the County is the main point of contact for the
majority of the Project details; and
WHEREAS, CDOT will mitigate the impact to wetlands on the Property caused by the
Project by making a $9,750 payment to the Natural Areas wetland mitigation fund; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of December 11, 2013, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board voted to recommend adoption of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in
the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or
other disposition is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
- 2 -
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that, because of the benefit to the
citizens of Fort Collins provided by the intersection improvements, the conveyance of the Right-
of-Way and TCE on Long View farm to CDOT 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 Right-of-Way and TCE to CDOT on terms and conditions consistent
with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the City or to effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to,
any necessary changes to the description of the 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 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
EXHIBIT B
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
EXHIBIT A
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT C
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment6.2: Ordinance No. 016, 2014 (1663 : SR 016 Long View Farm CDOT Easement)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Dennis Sumner, Senior Electrical Engineer
Steven Catanach, Light & Power Operations Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the City Code
Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, amends City Code
concerning monthly billing charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric
service consumption for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of utility
bill and account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical electric
meters which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this descriptor has
created unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended change is to
provide greater clarity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 017, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 93
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Dennis Sumner, Senior Electrical Engineer
Steven Catanach, Light & Power Operations Manager
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Section 26-712, of the
City Code Relating to Utility Manual Meter Reading Charges.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to revise the language used in the City Code concerning monthly billing
charges for a site visit to obtain metering data for water and/or electric service consumption. The data
is used for monthly billing of utility services. The existing descriptor in the table of utility bill and
account charges in Section 26-712 of City Code mistakenly references mechanical electric meters
which have not been purchased by Light & Power since 2009. The use of this descriptor has created
unnecessary confusion about the intent of this provision. The recommended change is to provide
greater clarity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Code provides for the optional use of metering equipment without remote communications
capability for recording water and electric services consumption. When such “non-advanced” metering
is used, a site visit is required to read water and/or electric meters to obtain the use data used for
service billing. A monthly fee for manual meter reading was established by Ordinance No. 161, 2011. The
amount of the charge is not changed by this Ordinance. The fee is intended to recover the cost of manual
meter readings for customers who choose to have a meter that does not transmit use date and therefore
must be read manually. The manual meter reading charge is $11.00 per month for electric and/or water
service. The fee is calculated to cover the cost of labor and equipment required to make a manual read of
the meter(s) each month. All customers are eligible and encouraged to participate in the Advanced Meter
Fort Collins program and accept updated metering equipment that transmits data. Those customers with an
“advanced meter” will not require a manual reading and will not incur this fee. The fee is not intended to be a
penalty for selecting a manually read meter; it is an equitable means to recover the costs to read the non-
advanced meters.
The current descriptor in the table at Section 26-712 that details utility fees mistakenly references a
mechanical electric meter. Light & Power has been installing electronic meters since the early 1990s
and has been phasing out electro-mechanical meters for some time. Light & Power has not used
electro-mechanical meters as an equipment standard since 2009. The ordinance states the intention
of the Code provision more clearly. The revision changes the description in the table to clearly
communicate that the charge is for the site visit required to read water and/or electric metering to
obtain use data that will be used for monthly service billing, and is not intended to create an
entitlement on the part of the utility customer to request or retain a mechanical meter.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment7.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
There is no change in the fee amount.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This change should not have environmental impacts.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This is a clarification of an existing Code provision, not a policy or fee change. As such, it was not taken to
the Water or Energy Boards.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Postcards with notice of the change were mailed to out-of-City electric customers. A public notice was
published in the Coloradoan on December 20, 2013 and posted on the City Clerk's public notice website.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment7.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 017, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26, SECTION 712 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS RELATED TO MANUAL UTILITY METER READING CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the
City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for
utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses
and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Section 26-712 of the City Code was
updated to include a charge for manual reading of certain utility metering equipment in order to
recover the cost of performing such meter-reading; and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid confusion regarding the application of this charge, staff has
determined the need to clarify the descriptor language for the charge, as found in the City Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to clarify the
purpose and application of the charge for manual reading of meters without remote
communications capabilities used by some Fort Collins water and electric utilities customers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-712(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-712. Utility bill and account charges authorized; procedures.
…
(b) The following account and miscellaneous fees and charges shall apply to all City
utility customers receiving service pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26, whether within or
outside of the corporate limits of the City, except as otherwise expressly stated:
Fees and Charges Amount
Service connection fee for account
with one or more metered services
(including non metered services for
the same account)
$19.65
Customer-initiated rate change
(after 90 days of new service)
19.65
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment7.2: Ordinance No. 017, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
- 2 -
Service connection fee for account
with only non-metered services
(stormwater, wastewater, wind, flat
commercial electric, sprinkler
clocks, cable towers and
floodlights)
10.00
Service fee to reinstate an account
to the owner/property manager
between tenants
10.00
Manual meter reading charge, per
month, charged to service
addresses where metering
equipment without remote
communications capability is used,
requiring an on-site visit to collect
use data for water and/or electric
service
11.00 per month
Turn-off notice fee 10.00
Reconnect fee per service for water
or electric following disconnection
for delinquency
20.00
Trip charge for special services
requested by customer during
normal service hours
19.65
After-hours reconnect or after-
hours trip charge for special service
requested by customer Water (after
5:00 p.m. weekdays or
weekend/holiday)
85.35
After-hours reconnect or after-
hours trip charge for special service
requested by customer Electric
(after 5:00 p.m. weekdays or
weekend/holiday)
85.35
Return item fee (check, electronic
fund transfer, credit card, etc.)
25.00
Owner-requested repair disconnect 20.00
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment7.2: Ordinance No. 017, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
- 3 -
fee, per trip
Research/document fee per hour 20.00
Interest rate for utility service-
related loans:
No less than the most current U.S.
prime lending rate at the time of loan
origination plus 2% and no more than
the most current U.S. prime lending
rate at the time of loan origination
plus 5%, per annum, with the interest
rate for each loan to be set in
accordance with the administrative
rules and regulations of the Financial
Officer pursuant to § 26-720.
Loan-related fees for wastewater
service-related loans:
a. For loan application: 25.00
b. For loan origination: 150.00
Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment7.2: Ordinance No. 017, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
- 4 -
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment7.2: Ordinance No. 017, 2014 (1667 : SR 017 Utility Manual Meter Reading)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2012 International Codes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code
for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and Adopting the 2012
International Building Code, with Amendments.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code
for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Adopting the
2012 International Energy Conservation Code, with Amendments.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code
for the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and Adopting the 2012
International Residential Code, with Amendments.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC), and adopting the 2012 International
Mechanical Code, with Amendments.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose Repealing the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), and Adopting the 2012 International
Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 21, 2014, adopt the 2012 International
Codes (I-Codes). The 2012 I-Codes represent the most up-to-date construction standards establishing
minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from hazards attributed to
the built environment within the City of Fort Collins.
Ordinance Nos. 018, 2014 (IBC) and 019, 2014 (IECC) have been amended to include a reference the
International Green Construction Code among the referenced standards listed. Ordinance No. 020, 2014,
International Residential Code, has been revised on Second Reading to correct Code section numbering of
Item numbers (64) and (65) that were incorrectly labeled (see page 21 of Ordinance). Section R313.2 (page
14 of the Ordinance) has been revised to delete single-family dwellings from the fire-sprinkler requirement,
which were not intended to be sprinkled.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading.
Packet Pg. 100
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (PDF)
3. Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (PDF)
4. Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (PDF)
5. Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (PDF)
6. Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (PDF)
Packet Pg. 101
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Adoption of the 2012 International Codes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for
the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and Adopting the 2012 International
Building Code, with Amendments.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for
the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Adopting the
2012 International Energy Conservation Code, with Amendments.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article II, Division 2, of the City Code for
the Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and Adopting the 2012
International Residential Code, with Amendments.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose of Repealing the 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC), and adopting the 2012 International
Mechanical Code, with Amendments.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2014, Amending Chapter 5, Article IV of the City Code for the
Purpose Repealing the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), and Adopting the 2012 International
Fuel Gas Code, with Amendments.
The purpose of this item is to recommend adoption the 2012 International Codes (I-Codes). The 2012 I-
Codes represent the most up-to-date construction standards establishing minimum requirements to safeguard
the public health, safety, and general welfare from hazards attributed to the built environment within the City
of Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the 2012 I-Codes and the associated local amendments. Key
recommendations include:
1. Proposing to amend the International Building Code (IBC) to require that new Group R-2 (multi-family
buildings) be provided with the enhanced fire-suppressions (fire-sprinkler) system, NFPA 13, which
would provide sprinkler head protection in attic spaces not currently required to be protected. This
amendment is proposed to become effective July 1, 2014, providing sufficient time for designers and
developers to make the appropriate changes to construction documents. Please see local
amendment to the IBC Section 903.3.1.2.
2. Proposing to amend the IBC and International Residential Code (IRC) by disallowing the use of vinyl
and polypropylene siding materials on new buildings. Vinyl siding products have been found to be
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment8.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 2
contributors of flame spread in recent local fires causing extensive damage and property loss. Vinyl
siding products tend to warp and crack over time when exposed to sunlight, especially at higher
altitudes. Vinyl siding products are mostly used on low income multi-family housing projects and have
not been used on single-family products for at least the past decade. Please see local amendments
to the IBC Sections 1404.9 and 1404.12 and local amendments to the IRC Sections R703.11 and
R703.11.3.
3. Proposing to amend the IBC and IRC to improve the Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP),
currently required for new buildings only, to require recycling of construction waste such as wood,
concrete and masonry, metals, and cardboard during remodels and additions over 2500 square feet.
Also, proposing that supporting documentation that verifies compliance with the CWMP would be
required before the Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Please see local amendment to the IBC
Section 3602.1 and local amendment to the IRC Section R324.1.
4. Proposing to amend the IBC and IRC to require a demolition/recycling plan for all buildings being
demolished. The amendment would require the removal of all hazards such as asbestos and lead
paint, removal and recycling of all reusable components such as cabinets, doors, windows, and
fixtures. All remaining wood, concrete and masonry, metals, and cardboard is to be recycled in
accordance with a Construction Waste Management Plan. Please see local amendment to the IBC
Section 3602.1.1 and local amendment to the IRC Section R324.1.1.
5. Proposing to amend the IRC to require fire-sprinkler systems in new duplex and new townhome
projects. This proposal is to become effective July 1, 2014. Please see local amendment to the IRC
Sections R313.1 and R313.2.
6. Proposing to amend the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) to require an air-tightness
test in multi-family buildings that verifies that the air leakage between dwelling units, across the
common wall, meets Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes Multi-Family
criteria of not more than .30 CFM/cubic feet/of surface area. This criteria is equivalent to the air
tightness requirements currently in place for detached single-family homes. Recognizing that
designers will need time to incorporate construction details to meet this amendment, staff suggests
that this proposal become effective July 1, 2014. Please see local amendment to the IECC Section
R402.4.1.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The International Codes and standards are reviewed and voted on by construction industry professionals from
across the country and published every three years under the oversight of the International Code Council
(ICC). The latest publications brought forth by the ICC are the proposed 2012 International Codes intended to
replace the current City-adopted 2009 International Codes.
Since 1924, the City of Fort Collins has periodically reviewed, amended, and adopted the latest nationally
recognized building standards available for the times. The City has updated the minimum construction
standards thirteen (13) times since 1924.
Locally, the rational for staff to recommend items #1 and #2 above are the result of recent highly damaging
fires at the Buffalo Run and Bull Run apartment complexes. Both complexes were provided with the lower
standard NFPA 13R fire-sprinkler system which does not require fire-sprinkler heads in the attic. Both projects
were constructed with the required fire barriers in the attic space and these fire-barriers failed to contain the
fire spread. Both fires started on the exterior enflaming the vinyl siding products allowing the flames to travel
fairly rapidly up the exterior wall surface and into the un-protected wood constructed attic spaces. The
construction details incorporated and the siding products used were in compliance with the codes at the time
of construction but were proved to be ineffective at retarding a fire which destroyed a dozen apartments
before the fire department arrived and extinguished these blazes. These two fire events caused damage
estimated at $400,000 and $500,000 respectively, displacing a dozen low income families from their homes
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment8.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 3
and destroying all contents and personal belongings. Over the past decade or more, very few multi-family
projects were designed with vinyl siding and no single-family detached projects have used vinyl siding
products.
Staff’s recommendation of item #5 above is based on the understanding that duplex and townhome projects
more closely resemble the multi-family projects (which are required to have fire-sprinklers) in that, one
occupant or owner has no control over the actions or accidents of a neighbor just a wall thickness away.
Requiring fire-sprinkler systems in new single-family detached dwellings is not being recommended with this
code adoption cycle.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed Codes and local amendments will have an economic impact on construction cost of multi-family
and attached dwelling units of duplex and townhome projects.
Effective July 1, 2014, requiring new multi-family buildings to be protected with the National Fire Protection
Association’s NFPA 13 fire-sprinkler system is anticipated to increase the cost of the fire-suppressions system
by 35% over the currently allowed NFPA 13R. This calculates to approximately $750 increase per dwelling
unit of a multi-family building.
Effective July 1, 2014, requiring new duplexes and new townhomes to be provided with a fire-sprinkler system
in accordance with the IRC Section P2904 is anticipated to increase construction cost by approximately $1.50
per square foot floor area. IRC’s P2904 fire-sprinkler system is the most cost effective system available with
current technology. The system is a combination potable-water/fire-sprinkler system and is installed by a
licensed plumber as an extension of the building’s water plumbing system. The P2904 is not anticipated to
cause leaks any more often than current water piping systems installed in buildings and is subject to the same
freeze protections required of water piping systems in general.
Eliminating the use of vinyl siding products on new buildings is anticipated to increase the cost of siding
materials by approximately $0.41 per square foot of siding. Labor cost to install siding is the same regardless
of the materials used. This calculates to approximately $245.00 increase per dwelling unit, but only on
projects that propose the use of vinyl siding. Over the past 12 years or more, very few multi-family projects
and no single-family projects have started construction proposing the use vinyl siding products. See
Attachment 2 for a breakdown of these cost estimates.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Improvements being proposed to the Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP), for new buildings as
well as remodeled buildings, will divert additional construction waste from the landfill. Buildings to be
demolished will, for the first time in Fort Collins, be required to first remove hazards such as lead paint and
asbestos, then remove and recycle any salvageable materials, while complying with the adopted CWMP for
all remaining materials such as wood, concrete and masonry, metals, and cardboards.
Installing fire-suppression systems in new duplexes and new townhomes is considered by many construction
industry organizations as “green building”. Several studies have been completed that tout the environmental
benefits of suppressing a building fire with sprinkler systems as opposed to relying on fire departments to
extinguish an event. The philosophy of extinguishing a fire through the use of fire-sprinkler systems, versus
containing a fire through fire-rated construction has been a key point for the code writers, the International
Code Council, since the inception of the I-Codes in 2000. Please see Attachment 3 Residential Sprinkler
Reports for the various studies conducted.
Multi-family air testing of individual dwelling units, constructed after July 1, 2014, will need to show air
tightness similar to new single-family detached homes. It is anticipated that assuring the air tightness of
individual dwelling units will significantly improve indoor air quality by reducing air pollutants and odors from
transferring between dwelling units across common walls or floor ceiling systems.
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment8.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 4
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Over the past several months, the proposed 2012 I-Codes and local amendments were introduced to
numerous City boards and commissions. While there is wide support for the adoption of the 2012 I-Codes
including the proposed fire-sprinkler changes to multi-family buildings and requiring fire-sprinklers in attached
dwellings such as duplex and townhomes, there is concern over the construction cost increases in general.
There is little to no support for requiring fire-sprinklers in new detached single-family homes. See Attachment
4 for the list of presentations and dates, including a brief summary of each along with minutes or actions
where provided.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In August 2012, a committee was convened for the purpose of reviewing and recommending the adoption of
the proposed 2012 I-Codes and accompanying local amendments. The stakeholder’s Code Review
Committee represented a wide spectrum of volunteers from across the local construction industry including
private developers, builders, architects, engineers, building officials from neighboring jurisdictions and
representatives from the Building Review Board and the Poudre Fire Authority. See Attachment 5 for a list of
the members of the Code Review Committee.
On October 2, 2013 and November 13, 2013, the Code Review Committee met and committee members
voted in support of the 2012 I-Codes and accompanying local amendments as proposed, including the six
“key recommendations” discussed above. See Attachments 6 and 7 for an abbreviated list of proposed
amendments to the IBC and the IRC.
Code Review Committee Conclusions:
The Committee felt that generally, there are no significant changes in the 2012 IBC that the members
considered to be controversial or overly expensive to new construction. The proposed requirements that new
multi-family buildings provide fire-sprinklers in the attic and the elimination of vinyl siding products on new
buildings were supported and considered important discussion items. The remaining IBC and amendments
were supported for adoption.
The 2012 IRC requires that all new buildings constructed under the IRC, single-family detached, duplex, and
townhomes, be provided with a fire-sprinkler system. A majority of the members voted for support for the fire-
sprinkler requirement in new duplexes and new townhomes, and support an effective date of July 1, 2014.
The committee members do not support requiring fire-sprinkler systems in new single-family detached
projects. The remaining 2012 IRC and amendments were supported for adoption. The proposed codes were
introduced to the local Board of Realtors on two separate occasions and the Northern Colorado Home
Builders Association.
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment8.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, October 22, 2013 (PDF)
2. Cost Estimates (PDF)
3. Residential Sprinkler Reports (PDF)
4. Board and Commission Comments (PDF)
5. 2012 Code Committee members (PDF)
6. 2012 IBC Significant Proposed Amendments (PDF)
7. 2012 IRC Significant Proposed Amendments (PDF)
8. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
9. Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (PDF)
10. Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (PDF)
11. Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (PDF)
12. Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (PDF)
13. Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment8.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 018, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REPEALING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) AND
ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, since 1924, the City has reviewed, amended and adopted the latest
nationally recognized building standards available for the times; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of City staff, the City Council has determined that it
is in the best interests of the City to align the five interconnected basic construction codes under
one publication year; and
WHEREAS, the five interconnected basic construction codes are the International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International
Fuel Gas Code, and International Energy Conservation Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 2012 publication year of the five
interconnected basic construction codes ought to be adopted and that their counterpart codes
previously adopted should be repealed, both in order to align the publication years of the codes
and also because the 2012 publications contain improvements in construction code regulation;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a significant public outreach program, working
with the regulated construction industry and building professionals; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the five interconnected basic construction codes has been
presented to and recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Commission on Disability,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Building Review
Board, the Electric Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the City and its citizens that the 2009 International Building Code, as
amended be repealed, and that in its place, the 2012 International Building Code should be
adopted, with amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 5-26(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(a) Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-
16-202, C.R.S. and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, the City Council hereby repeals
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 2 -
the 2009 International Building Code (2009 IBC), and adopts, as the building code of the
City, the 2012 International Building Code (2012 IBC) published by the International
Code Council, as amended by the City, which shall have the same force and effect as
though set forth in full herein. The subject matter of the codes adopted herein includes
comprehensive provisions and standards regulating the erection, construction,
enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy,
equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of buildings and structures exclusive of
detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings
(townhouses) not more than three (3) stories above grade and their accessory structures,
for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare.
Section 2. That Section 5-27 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 5-27. Amendments and deletions to code.
The 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE adopted herein is hereby amended in the
following respects:
(1) Section 101. Title is hereby amended to read as follows:
“101.1. Title. “These regulations shall be known as the General Building Code of the
City of Fort Collins, hereinafter referred to as ‘this code’.”
(2) Section 101.4.1 through 101.4.9 Referenced codes, is amended to read as follows:
“101.4.1 Electrical. All references to the Electrical Code shall mean the electrical code
currently in effect as enacted by the State of Colorado.
101.4.2 Gas. All references to the International Fuel Gas Code shall mean the fuel gas
code currently in effect as enacted by the City.
101.4.3 Mechanical. All references to the International Mechanical Code shall mean the
mechanical code currently in effect as enacted by the City.
101.4.4 Plumbing. All references to the International Plumbing Code shall mean the
plumbing code currently in effect as enacted by the State of Colorado.
101.4.5 Property Maintenance. All references to the International Property
Maintenance Code shall mean the property maintenance code currently in effect as
enacted by the City.
101.4.6 Fire Prevention. All references to the International Fire Code shall mean the
fire code currently in effect as enacted by the City.
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 3 -
101.4.7 Energy. All references to the International Energy Conservation Code shall
mean the energy code currently in effect as enacted by the City.
101.4.8 Residential. All references to the International Residential Code shall mean the
residential code currently in effect as enacted by the City.
101.4.9 Areas prone to flooding. All references to ‘flood hazard’ and ‘areas prone to
flooding’ in this code and appendices adopted therewith shall be as specified in the City
Code, “Chapter 10, Flood Prevention and Protection.”
(3) Section 103 Department of Building Safety is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“SECTION 103 CODE ADMINISTRATION
103.1 Entity charged with code administration. The Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Department, as established by the City Code, is hereby charged
with the administration and enforcement of this code.
The building official, appointed by the City Manager, is charged with the direct overall
administration and enforcement of this code; and, in the performance of said duties, may
delegate the necessary authority to the appropriate technical, administrative, and
compliance staff under the supervision the building official.”
(4) Section 105.2 Work exempt from permit, under the heading of “Building” is amended or
added to read as follows:
“Building:
1. One-story, detached, accessory structures used for lawn and garden equipment
storage, tool storage and similar uses, including arbors, pergolas, and similar structures,
provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11.15 m2) or 8 feet (2.438 m)
in height, do not house flammable liquids in quantities exceeding 10 gallons (38 l) per
building and are constructed entirely of noncombustible materials when located less than
3 feet (0.914 m) from an adjoining property line.
2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.
3. Oil derricks
4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the
low side grade to the top of the wall, provided the horizontal distance to the next uphill
retaining wall is at least equal to the total height of the lower retaining wall, unless
supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.
5. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000
gallons (18,927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1.
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 4 -
6. Platforms intended for human occupancy or walking, sidewalks and driveways
not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and not over any basement
window or story below and are not part of an accessible route.
7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish
work.
8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
9. Prefabricated and portable swimming or wading pools, hot tubs or spas if such
structures are supported directly upon grade when the walls of such structure are entirely
above grade and if such structures cannot contain water more than 24 inches (610 mm)
deep.
10. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes, not
including service systems.
11. Swings and other playground equipment including one elevated playhouse per lot
designed and used exclusively for play, not exceeding 64 square feet (5.9 m2) of floor
area or 6 feet (1.82 m) in height as measured from the floor to the highest point of such
structure.
12. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than
54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support.
Window replacement requiring no structural alteration. Window replacement requiring
no change in the window configuration which reduces the size of the window opening.
Window replacement when such work is determined not to be historically significant.
Storm window, storm door and rain gutter installation.
13. Non-fixed and movable fixtures, cases, racks, counters and partitions not over 5
feet 9 inches (1753
mm) in height.
14. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area that are not more than 30
inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a building, and do not
serve an exit door required by Chapter 10.
15. Roofing repair or replacement work not exceeding one square (100 square feet) of
covering per building.
16. Replacement of nonstructural siding when the removal of siding is performed in
accordance with State laws regarding asbestos and lead paint.
17. Minor work valued at less than $500 when such minor work does not involve
alteration of structural components, fire-rated assemblies, plumbing, electrical,
mechanical or fire-extinguishing systems.
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 5 -
18. Decorative ponds, fountains and pools no more than 24 inches (610 mm) deep.”
(5) Section 105.2 Work exempt from permit, is further amended by deleting all headings and
references under Electrical, Gas, and Mechanical.
(6) Section 105.5 Expiration is hereby amended by adding a second paragraph to read as
follows:
“Both prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this code, any work authorized by a
permit regulated by this code or any other building construction code administered by the
building official that involves the construction or alteration of an exterior building
component, assembly or finish material, such as the foundation, wall and roof framing,
sheathing, siding, fenestration, and roof covering, shall be fully finished for permanent
outdoor exposure within 24 months of the date of the issuance of such permit, regardless
of when the permit was issued. ”
(7) Section 105.8 Transfer of permits, is added to read as follows:
“105.8 Transfer of permits. A current valid building permit may be transferred from one
party to another upon written application to the building official. When any changes are
made to the original plans and specifications that substantially differ from the plans
submitted with the permit, as determined by the building official, a new plan review fee
shall be paid as calculated in accordance with Section 109. A fee of $50 shall be paid to
cover administrative costs for all building permit transfers. No change shall be made in
the expiration date of the original permit.”
(8) Section 107.3.1 Approval of construction documents, is hereby amended to read as;
“107.3.1 Approval of construction documents. When the building official issues a
permit, the construction documents shall be approved in writing or by a stamp. One set
of construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The
other set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be
open to inspection by the building official or his or her authorized representative.”
(9) Section 108 Temporary Structures and Uses is deleted in its entirety.
(10) Section 109, FEES, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
SECTION 109 FEES
“109.1 Payment of fees. No permit shall be valid until the fees prescribed by the City
Manager pursuant to Chapter 7.5, Article I of the City Code, entitled, ‘Administrative
Fees’, have been paid.
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 6 -
109.2 Related fees. The payment of the fee for the construction, alteration, removal or
demolition for work done in connection with or concurrently with the work authorized by
a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the permit from the payment
of other fees that are prescribed by law.
109.3 Fee refunds. Any fee paid hereunder that is erroneously paid or collected shall be
refunded. The building official may authorize the refunding of 90 percent of a plan
review fee or building permit fee to the applicant who paid such fee provided the plan
review is withdrawn or cancelled and the plan review and/or work authorized under a
permit issued in accordance with this code has not commenced; and further provided that
such plan review or permit is valid and not expired as set forth in Section 105.5. Prior to
authorizing the refunding of any fee paid to the original applicant or permitee, a written
request from such party must be submitted to the City within 180 days of the date of the
fee payment.”
(11) Section 113, Board of Appeals, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“SECTION 113 BOARD OF APPEALS
113.1 General. The Building Review Board (hereafter "Board") established in Section
2-117 of the City Code is hereby empowered in accordance with the procedures set forth
in this section and as authorized under Section 2-119 of the City Code to hear and decide
appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to
the application and interpretation of this code; to determine the suitability of alternative
materials or alternative methods of construction; and to grant permit extensions and
reinstatements as prescribed by Section 105.5. The building official shall serve as the
Secretary of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its
business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing.
113.2 Applications/Hearings. When a building permit applicant or a holder of a
building permit desires relief from any decision of the building official related to the
enforcement of this code, except as is otherwise limited in Section 113.4, such building
permit applicant, building permit holder, or representative thereof may appeal the
decision of the building official to the Board, stating that such decision by the building
official was based on an erroneous interpretation of the building regulations or that an
alternative design, alternative materials and/or the alternative methods of construction
proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code, considering
structural strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent
factors.
The Board shall hear and decide all appeals made to it and shall have the authority to rule
in favor of the appellant when the Board determines that the interpretation of the building
regulations of the City by the building official was erroneous, or when the Board
determines an alternative design, alternative materials and/or the alternative methods
proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code, considering
structural strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 7 -
factors. The Board shall require that sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any
claims made regarding the proposed alternative design, alternative materials and/or
alternative methods of construction. A quorum of 4 members shall be necessary for any
meeting of the Board.
113.3 Fees and Notification. Persons desiring to appeal to the Board any decision of the
building official as provided in this section shall, at the time of filing such appeal, pay to
the City a filing fee in the amount of $50. Written notice of hearings shall be given to the
Appellant and, with respect to requests for exceptions or variances to Section 1101.1 of
this code, to the secretary to the Commission on Disability, at least 4 days prior to the
hearing by mailing the same to such party's last known address by regular U.S. mail.
113.4 Limitations. The Building Review Board shall have no authority with respect to
any of the following functions:
1. The administration of this code except as expressly provided otherwise;
2. Waiving requirements of this code, except as provided in this section;
3. Modifying the applicable provisions of, or granting variances to, this code, or
approving the use of alternative designs, alternative materials and/or alternative
methods of construction except as provided for in this section and based upon a
specific appeal from a determination or decision of the building official on an
individual case basis; and
4. Modifying, interpreting, or ruling on the applicability or intent of the zoning and
land use regulations or other laws of the City except as expressly empowered
otherwise.”
(12) Section 114.4, Violation penalties is amended to read as follows:
“114.4 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to
comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a
building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of
the building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the penalties and fines specified
in Section 1-15 of the City Code.”
(13) Section 114.5 Work commencing before permit issuance, is added to read as follows:
“114.5 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set forth
in 114.4, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s), commences
any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or
plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit, shall be subject
to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall be equal in
amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more than $1,000
for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such violation
repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee or
double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater,
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 8 -
for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation.
Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the
City Code.”
(14) Section 202, DEFINITIONS, terms are hereby amended or added in alphabetical
sequence in the following respects:
“COMMISSIONING. A process to verify and document that the selected building and
systems have been designed, installed, and function in accordance with the construction
documents, manufacturers’ specifications, and minimum code requirements.
DWELLING. A building used exclusively for residential occupancy and for permitted
accessory uses, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multi-family
dwellings, and which contains: (a) a minimum of 800 square feet of floor area, or (b) in
the case of a dwelling to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot in the L-M-N, M-M-
N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B, C-C-N, C-C-R, H-C or E zone districts, a minimum of 400
square feet of floor area, so long as a dwelling already exists on the front portion of such
lot. The term dwelling shall not include hotels, motels, tents or other structures designed
or used primarily for temporary occupancy. Any dwelling shall be deemed to be a
principal building.
DWELLING UNIT. One or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least 1 bathroom,
designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use
of a single family for living, cooking and sanitary purposes, located in a single-family,
two-family or multi-family dwelling or mixed-use building.
FAMILY. Any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption,
guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a
single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating
facilities.
FIRE CONTAINMENT AREA. A portion of a story or basement which is totally
enclosed by not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction and, as prescribed in
Section 709, entitled Fire Partitions and in Section 710, entitled Smoke Barriers.
Openings other than doors and ducts shall be protected as specified in Section 715.5 and
shall be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of any one wall. Self-closing devices may be
used in place of automatic closing devices on doors unlikely to be fixed open during
normal conditions. Examples are doors at toilet rooms, closets and small storage rooms
and similar areas.
GRADE (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION). The lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk between the building and the property
line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building, between
the building and a line 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building.
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 9 -
ROOM, SLEEPING (BEDROOM). A habitable room within a dwelling or other
housing unit designed primarily for the purpose of sleeping. The presence of a bed, cot,
mattress, convertible sofa or other similar furnishing used for sleeping purposes shall be
prima facie evidence that such space or room is a sleeping room. The presence of closets
or similar storage facilities shall not be considered relevant factors in determining
whether or not a room is a sleeping room.
TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed as part of a group of two or
more attached individual dwelling units, each of which is separated from the other from
the foundation to the roof and is located entirely on a separately recorded and platted
parcel of land (site) bounded by property lines, which parcel is deeded exclusively for
such single-family dwelling.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC): Any compound of carbon, excluding
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. VOCs
include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short-and long-term adverse
health effects emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids.”
(15) Section 419.1General is amended to read as follows:
“419.1 General. A live/work unit is a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in which a
significant portion of the space includes a nonresidential use that is operated by the tenant
and shall comply with Sections 419.1 through 419.8.
Exception:
Dwelling or sleeping units that include an office that is less than 20 percent of the area of
the dwelling unit shall not be classified as a live/work unit.”
(16) Section 501.3 Premises Identification is hereby added to read as follows:
“501.3 Premises Identification During Construction. The approved permit number
and street address number shall be displayed and be plainly visible and legible from the
public street or road fronting the property on which any building is being constructed or
remodeled.”
(17) Section 505.2.1 Area Limitation is amended by adding a new exception number 3 to read
as follows:
“3. Within individual dwelling units of Group R occupancies, the maximum aggregate
area of a mezzanine may be equal to one-half of the area of the room in which it is
located, without being considered an additional story. The mezzanine may be closed to
the room in which it is located as long as exits from the mezzanine are in conformance
with Section 505.2.2.”
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 10 -
(18) Section 705.3 Buildings on the same lot is amended by adding a third paragraph to read
as follows:
“Lines or walls which are established solely to delineate individual portions of a building
or of a planned unit development (PUD) need not be considered as property lines for the
purposes of this code, provided that such building is entirely located on property which is
under common ownership and further provided that required distances, set forth in
Section 503.1.2 for assumed property lines between buildings located on the same
property, are maintained.”
(19) Table 903.1 Maximum Allowable Fire-Containment Area is added as follows:
“TABLE 903.1
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIRE-CONTAINMENT AREA
(IN SQUARE FEET)
Types of Construction
Occupancy I A I B II A II B III A III B IV-HT VA VB
A1 10,000 10,000 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
A2, 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
A3, 4 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
B, F1, S1, S2
M, U
10,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 5,000
F2 20,000 20,000 10,000 7,000 10,000 7,000 10,000 10,000 5,000
E 10,000 10,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 5,000
NP = Not Permitted
Exception: S2 Open parking garages in accordance with Section 406.5”
(20) Section 903.2 Where required, is amended by adding an exception number 2 to read as
follows:
“2. Except for Group R Occupancies, an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in
all buildings which are not divided into fire containment areas as specified in Table
903.1.”
(21) Section 903.2.11.1.3 Basements is amended by deleting potions of the sentence to read
as follows:
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 11 -
“903.2.11.1.3 Basements. Where any portion of a basement is located more than 75 feet
(22 860 mm) from openings required by Section 903.2.11.1, the basement shall be
equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system.”
(22) Section 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems
“903.3.1.2 Group R sprinkler systems. Effective August 1, 2014, Automatic sprinkler
systems in Group R occupancies up to and including four stories in height shall be
installed throughout in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.”
(23) Section 907.2.11 Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms is amended by adding a
second paragraph thereto to read as follows:
“When one or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing Group R
Occupancies, the entire building shall be provided with smoke detectors located and
installed as required for new Group R Occupancies as described herein.”
(24) Section 908.7 Carbon monoxide alarms is amended by deleting the exception:
(25) Section 1007.3 Stairways, Exceptions 1, 2 are amended to read as follows:
“Exceptions:
1. The clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) between handrails is not required in
buildings not more than 4 stories above grade plane equipped throughout with an
automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2.
2. Areas of refuge are not required at stairways in buildings not more than 4 stories
above grade plane equipped throughout by an automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.”
(26) Section 1007.4 Elevators is amended by adding a new exception #5 to read as:
“5. Elevators in buildings not more than 4 stories above grade plane are not required to
be considered an accessible means of egress when the building is equipped throughout
with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2.”
(27) Section 1007.8 Two-way communication exception #1 is amended to read as follows:
Exception:
“1. Two-way communication systems are not required at the elevator landing of
buildings not required to provide areas of refuge in accordance with Section
1007.4.”
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 12 -
(28) Section 1008.1.5 Floor elevation is amended by adding a second paragraph to read as
follows:
“All exterior steps, slabs, walks, decks and patios serving as exterior door landings or
exterior stairs shall be adequately and permanently secured in place by approved methods
to prevent such landings or stairs from being undermined or subject to significant
displacement due to improper placement of supporting backfill or due to inadequate
anchoring methods.”
(29) Section 1008.1.5 Floor elevation is further amended by adding a new, Exception 6, to
read as follows:
“6. Exterior doors serving individual dwelling units, other than the main entrance door to
a dwelling unit, may open at one intervening exterior step that is equally spaced between
the interior floor level above and exterior landing below, provided that the step has a
minimum tread depth of 12 inches, a maximum riser height of 7 ¾ inches (7.75”), and a
minimum width equal to the door width, and further provided that the door does not
swing over the step.”
(30) Section 1009.15 Handrails is amended to read as follows:
“1009.15 Handrails. Stairways of more than 1 riser shall have handrails on each side and
shall comply with Section 1012. Where glass is used to provide the handrail, the handrail
shall also comply with Section 2407.”
(31) Section 1013.8 Window Sills is amended to read as follows:
“1013.8 Window sills. In Occupancy Groups R-2 and R-3, one- and two-family and
multiple-family dwellings, where the opening of the sill portion of an operable window is
located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below,
the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be at a height not less than 24
inches (304.8 mm) above the finished floor surface of the room in which the window is
located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a
4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 24 inches
(304.8 mm) of the finished floor.
Exceptions:
1. Operable windows where the sill portion of the opening is located more than 75
feet (22 860 mm) above the finished grade or other surface below and that are
provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2006.
2. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4 inch diameter (102 mm) sphere to
pass through the opening when the window is in its largest opened position.
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 13 -
3. Openings that are provided with non-removable window fall prevention devices
that comply with ASTM F 2090.
4. Windows that are provided with non-removable window opening control devices
that comply with Section 1013.8.1.
5. Emergency escape and rescue windows shall be installed per Section 1029.”
(32) Section 1013.9 Below grade openings is amended by adding a new section read as
follows:
“1013.9 Below grade openings. All area wells, stair wells and light wells attached to any
building that are located less than 36 inches from the nearest intended walking surface
and deeper than 36 inches below the surrounding ground level, creating an opening with
a horizontal dimension greater than 24 inches measured perpendicularly from the
building, with the side walls of such well having a slope steeper than 2 horizontal to 1
vertical, shall be protected with guardrails conforming to this Section around the entire
opening, or be provided with an equivalent barrier.
Exceptions:
1. The access side of stairways need not be barricaded.
2. Area wells provided for emergency escape and rescue windows may be protected
with approved grates or covers that comply with Section 1029.4 of this code.
3. Covers and grates may be used over stairways and other openings used
exclusively for service access or for admitting light or ventilation.”
(33) Section 1029.1 General Exceptions 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Exceptions:
“1. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 72 inches (1828.8 mm) shall not be
required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.”
(34) Section 1029.3.1 Minimum height from floor is added to read as follows:
“1029.3.1 Minimum height from floor. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall
have the bottom of the clear opening not less than 24 inches (609.6 mm) measured from
the floor.”
(35) Section 1029.5 Window Wells is amended by adding a new exception to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 14 -
“Exception:
With the window in the full open position, the bottom window well step may encroach a
maximum of 12 inches (304 mm) into the minimum horizontal projection, provided the
well meets the criteria of 1 and 2 below:
1. The bottom of the well is not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm), centered
horizontally on the openable portion of the emergency escape and rescue door or
window, and
2. An unobstructed clear horizontal projection of 36 inches (914 mm) is maintained
at the centerline of the openable portion of the emergency escape and rescue door
or window.”
(36) Section 1029.5.3 Drainage is hereby added to read as:
“1029.5.3 Drainage. Window wells shall be designed for proper drainage by connecting
to the building’s foundation drainage system required by Section 1805.4.2 or by an
approved alternative method. The inlet to the drainage system shall be a minimum of 4
inches (101 mm) below the window sill. Where no drains are required, the window well
surface shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101 mm) below the window sill.
Exceptions:
1. A drainage system for window wells is not required when the foundation is on
well-drained soil or sand-gravel mixture soils as determined by the foundation
engineer of record.
2. A drainage system is not required for new window wells on additions to existing
dwellings.”
(37) Section 1101.2 Design is amended to read as follows:
“1101.2 Design. Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be
accessible in accordance with this code and the most recently published edition of ANSI
A117.1 as referenced by the building official.”
(38) Section 1103.1 Where required is amended by adding a second and third paragraphs to
read as follows:
“When the Building Review Board considers granting exceptions or variances either to
this chapter pursuant to Section 113 of this code or to Colorado Statutes pursuant to
Section 9-5-102, C.R.S., it shall require the applicant requesting the exception or variance
to demonstrate that the application of a particular standard or specification relating to
access for persons with disabilities would impose an extraordinary hardship on the
subject property. For the purposes of this Section, an extraordinary hardship shall mean a
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 15 -
substantial and unusual hardship which is the direct result of unique physical site
conditions such as terrain, topography or geology, or which is the direct result of other
unique or special conditions encountered on the subject property, but which are not
typically encountered elsewhere in the City. Constraints, complications or difficulties that
may arise by complying with this chapter and/or with the statutory standards for
accessibility but that do not constitute an extraordinary hardship shall not serve to justify
the granting of an exception or variance.”
(39) Section 1107.2 Design is amended by adding a second and third paragraph to read as
follows:
“When any building or buildings, classified as Group R, Division 1 or Group R, Division
2 Occupancy, are constructed as a single building project (or any phase thereof) on any
one site, and such building project (or phase) contains one or more accessible dwelling
units as required by this chapter or Colorado law, said building project (or phase) shall be
constructed such that all such required accessible dwelling units in such building project
(or phase) provide the same functional features as are provided in the nonaccessible units
in such building project (or phase). Furthermore, all such functional features except
dwelling unit bedroom-types shall be provided in the same proportion as in the
nonaccessible units. Not less than 50 percent of the required accessible dwelling units
shall be constructed with the distribution of accessible dwelling unit bedroom-types being
proportionally the same as the distribution of nonaccessible dwelling unit bedroom-types,
provided that at least one of each dwelling unit bedroom-type constructed in the building
project (or phase) shall be an accessible dwelling unit.
For purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply. Dwelling unit
bedroom-type shall mean the number of bedrooms within the dwelling unit. Functional
feature shall mean a closet, garage, carport, patio, deck, additional room (such as a
bedroom, bathroom, den, storeroom, laundry or similar room) or any other significant
feature built at the time of original construction that offers occupants improved
convenience or comfort. Aesthetic or decorative features such as colors, architectural
design elements, trim and finish materials, decorative heating appliances not providing
the primary comfort heat source, lighting fixture style, cabinet and hardware style,
plumbing fixture style, the type and location of windows and glazed lights, or any similar
miscellaneous features shall not be construed as functional features.”
(40) Section 1203.3 Under-floor ventilation is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
“1203.3 Under-floor ventilation All exposed earth in a crawl space shall be covered
with a continuous Class I vapor retarder. Joints of the vapor retarder shall overlap by 6
inches (152 mm) and shall be sealed or taped. The edges of the vapor retarder shall
extend at least 6 inches (152 mm) up the perimeter stem wall and any footing pads on
grade, and be permanently attached and sealed to the stem wall or footing pads.
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 16 -
1203.3.1 Crawl space. Crawl spaces shall be designed and constructed to be
inside the building thermal envelope, in accordance with the insulation and air
sealing requirements for crawl space walls and rim joists of Section N1102 of the
International Residential Code as amended or the International Energy
Conservation Code as amended. Crawl spaces shall not be vented to the exterior.
They shall be conditioned using one of the following approaches:
1. Continuously operated mechanical exhaust ventilation at a rate equal to 1
cubic foot per minute (0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7m2) of crawl space
floor area, including an air pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer
grille);
2. Conditioned air supply sized to deliver at a rate equal to 1 cubic foot per
minute (0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7 m2) of under-floor area, including a
return air pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer grille);
3. Plenum in existing structures complying with Section M1601.5, if under-
floor space is used as a plenum.
Exception:
Crawl spaces shall be permitted to be designed and constructed as unconditioned
spaces, outside the building thermal envelope, provided the following
requirements are met:
1. The floor above the crawl space is part of the building thermal envelope.
It shall meet the insulation requirements of Table N1102.1.1 of this code and shall
be air-sealed in accordance with Section N1102.4.1 of this code.
2. Ventilation openings shall be placed through foundation walls or exterior
walls. The minimum net area of ventilation openings shall not be less than 1
square foot (0.0929 m2) for each 1,500 square feet (140 m2) of under-floor space
area. One such ventilating opening shall be within 3 feet (914 mm) of each corner
of the building.
3. Ventilation openings shall be covered for their height and width with any of
the following materials provided that the least dimension of the covering shall not
exceed 1/4 inch (6.4 mm):
a. Perforated sheet metal plates not less than 0.070 inch (1.8 mm) thick.
b. Expanded sheet metal plates not less than 0.047 inch (1.2 mm) thick.
c. Cast-iron grill or grating.
d. Extruded load-bearing brick vents.
e. Hardware cloth of 0.035 inch (0.89 mm) wire or heavier.
f. Corrosion-resistant wire mesh, with the least dimension being one-
eighth (1/8) inch (3.2 mm) thick.
4. The installation of operable louvers is allowed.”
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 17 -
Mechanical ventilation systems for spaces under below grade floors shall be
designed by a professional engineer, addressing moisture controls and by
approved methods considering the impact of negative pressures created by
exhaust fans, clothes dryers and similar appliances.
1203.3.2 Ventilated under-floor spaces. Floor systems above ventilated under-
floor spaces, or floors open to the exterior with no enclosed space below shall be
insulated to R-30 in accordance with the adopted International Energy
Conservation Code Table 402.1.1. The floor system shall be sealed to prevent
heat loss and air infiltration.”
(41) Section 1211 Radon-Resistant Construction is hereby added to read as follows:
“1211 – Radon-resistant construction
1211.1 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to new R-2 Occupancies, new I-1
occupancies, and new I-2 nursing homes.
1211.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements
to enhance the public safety, health and general welfare, through construction
methods designed and installed to resist entry of radon gas into the occupied
spaces of buildings regulated by this code.
1211.2 - Definitions
1211.2.1 General. For the purpose of these requirements, the terms used shall be
defined as follows:
FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM. A continuous length of drain tile, perforated
pipe, or filter mat extending around all or part of the internal or external perimeter
of a basement or crawl space footing designed to collect and drain away excess
subsurface water.
RADON. A naturally occurring, chemically inert, radioactive gas that is not
detectable by human senses, that can move readily through particles of soil and
rock, and that can accumulate under the slabs and foundations of homes where it
can easily enter the living space through construction cracks and openings.
SOIL-GAS-RETARDER. A continuous membrane of 3-mil (0.075 mm) cross-
linked polyethylene or other equivalent material used to retard the flow of soil
gases into a building.
SUBFLOOR. A concrete slab or other approved permanent floor system that
directly contacts the ground and is within the walls of the living spaces of the
building.
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 18 -
SUB-MEMBRANE DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM. A system designed to
achieve lower sub-membrane air pressure relative to crawl space air pressure by
use of a vent drawing air from beneath the soil-gas-retarder membrane.
SUB-SLAB DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM (Passive). A system designed to
achieve lower sub-slab air pressure relative to indoor air pressure by use of a vent
pipe routed through the conditioned space of a building and connecting the sub-
slab area with outdoor air, thereby relying on the convective flow of air upward in
the vent to draw air from beneath the slab.
1211.3 - Requirements
1211.3.1 General. The following required construction methods are intended to
resist radon entry and prepare the building for post-construction radon mitigation.
1211.3.2 Subfloor preparation. A layer of gas-permeable material shall be
placed under all subfloors. The gas-permeable layer shall consist of one of the
following methods except that where fills of aggregate size less than that
described in Method 1 are used beneath a slab, Method 2,3, 4, or 5 must be used.
1. A uniform layer of clean aggregate, a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm)
thick. The aggregate shall consist of material that will pass through a 2 inch (51
mm) sieve and be retained by a 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) sieve. In buildings where
interior footings or other barriers separate sub-grade areas, penetrations through
the interior footing or barrier equal to a minimum of 12 square inches (0.094 m2)
per 10 feet (3.048 m) of barrier length shall be provided. A minimum of 2
penetrations shall be provided per separation and be evenly spaced along the
separation.
Exception:
In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area,
separate radon vent pipes may be installed for each sub-grade area as specified in
Section 1211.5.2 in place of penetrations through the barrier.
2. A foundation drain pipe system installed under concrete floor slab areas
less than 2,000 square feet (186 m2), consisting of a continuous loop of minimum
3 inch (76 mm) diameter perforated pipe shall be laid in the sub-grade with the
top of the pipe located 1-inch (25.4 mm) below the concrete slab. The pipe may
be rigid or flexible but shall have perforations fully around the circumference with
a free air space equal to 1.83 square inches per square foot (127 cm2/m2) of
exterior pipe surface area. Such pipe shall be wrapped with approved filter
material to prevent blocking of pipe perforations. The pipe loop shall be located
inside of the exterior perimeter foundation walls not more than 12 inches (305
mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In buildings where interior footings or
other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the loop of pipe shall penetrate or pass
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 19 -
beneath such interior footings or barriers. For slab areas greater than 2,000 square
feet (186 m2) but less than 4,000 square feet (372 m2), the preceding configuration
may be used, provided a minimum of 4 inch diameter (102 mm) pipe is installed.
Slabs in excess of 4,000 square feet (372 m2) shall have under them separate
loops for every additional 2,000 square feet (186 m2) of slab area when 3 inch (76
mm) diameter pipe is used, or slabs may have separate loops provided for each
additional increment in area between 2,000 square feet (186 m2) and 4,000 square
feet (372 m2) when 4-inch (102 mm) diameter pipe is used.
3. A foundation drain soil gas collection mat system installed under concrete
floor slab areas of 2,000 square feet (186 m2) or less, consisting of a continuous
rectilinear loop of soil gas collection mat or drainage mat having minimum
dimensions of 1 inch in height by 12 inches in width (25.4 mm in height x 305
mm in width) and a nominal cross-sectional air flow area of 12 square inches
(0.0078 m2) may be laid on top of the sub-grade. The mat shall be constructed of a
matrix that allows for the movement of air through it and be capable of supporting
the concrete placed upon it. The matrix shall be covered by approved filter
material on all four sides to prevent dirt or concrete from entering the matrix. All
breaches and joints in the filter material shall be repaired prior to the placement of
the slab. The loop shall be located inside the exterior perimeter foundation walls
and within 12 inches (305 mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In buildings
where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the mat shall
penetrate these interior footings or barriers to form a continuous loop around the
exterior perimeter.
Slabs larger than 2,000 square feet (186 m2) but less than 4,000 square feet (372
m2) shall have under them an additional strip of mat that bisects the loop forming
two areas approximately equally divided by the two halves of the rectilinear loop.
Slabs larger than 4,000 square feet (372 m2) shall have separate loops for each
2,000 (186 m2) square feet, or for each 4,000 square feet (372 m2) if a loop is
bisected as specified in the preceding configuration.
4. A uniform layer of sand (native or fill), a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm)
thick, overlain by a layer or strips of geo-textile drainage matting designed to
allow the lateral flow of soil gases.
5. Other materials, systems or floor designs with demonstrated capability to
permit depressurization across the entire sub-floor area.
1211.3.3 Entry routes. Potential radon entry routes shall be closed in accordance with
Sections 1211.3.4.1 through 1211.3.4.8
1211.3.3.1 Floor openings. Openings around bathtubs, showers, water closets,
pipes, wires or other objects that penetrate concrete slabs or other floor assemblies
shall be filled with a polyurethane caulk or equivalent sealant applied in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 20 -
1211.3.3.2 Concrete joints. All control joints, isolation joints, construction joints
and any other joints in concrete slabs or between slabs and foundation walls shall
be sealed with a caulk or sealant. Gaps and joints shall be cleared of loose
material and filled with polyurethane caulk or other elastomeric sealant applied in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
1211.3.3.3 Condensate drains. Condensate drains shall be trapped or routed
through non-perforated pipe to daylight.
1211.3.3.4 Sumps. Sump pits open to soil or serving as the termination point for
sub-slab or exterior drain tile loops shall be covered with a gasketed or otherwise
sealed lid. Sumps used as the suction point in a sub-slab depressurization system
shall have a lid designed to accommodate the vent pipe. Sumps used as a floor
drain shall have a lid equipped with a trapped inlet and view port.
1211.3.3.5 Foundation walls. Hollow block masonry foundation walls shall be
constructed with either a continuous course of solid masonry, one course of
masonry grouted solid, or a solid concrete beam at or above finished ground
surface to prevent passage of air from the interior of the wall into the living space.
Where a brick veneer or other masonry ledge is installed, the course immediately
below that ledge shall be sealed. Joints, cracks or other openings around all
penetrations of both exterior and interior surfaces of masonry block or wood
foundation walls below the ground surface shall be filled with polyurethane caulk
or equivalent sealant. Penetrations of concrete walls shall be filled.
1211.3.3.6 Dampproofing. The exterior surfaces of portions of concrete and
masonry block walls below the ground surface shall be damp-proofed in
accordance with Section 1805.
1211.3.3.7 Air-handling units. Air-handling units in crawl spaces shall be sealed
to prevent air from being drawn into the unit.
Exception:
Units with gasketed seams or units that are otherwise sealed by the manufacturer
to prevent leakage.
1211.3.3.8 Ducts. Ductwork passing through or beneath a slab shall be of
seamless material unless the air-handling system is designed to maintain
continuous positive pressure within such ducting. Joints in such ductwork shall be
sealed to prevent air leakage. Ductwork located in crawl spaces shall have all
seams and joints sealed by closure systems in accordance with the International
Mechanical Code.
1211.3.4 Sub-membrane depressurization system. In buildings with interior structural
floors directly above under-floor spaces containing exposed soil surfaces that are not
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 21 -
protected by a sub-slab depressurization system, the following components of sub-
membrane depressurization system shall be installed during construction.
Exception:
Buildings in which an approved mechanical ventilation system complying with Section
1203 or such other equivalent system that provides equivalent depressurization across the
entire sub-membrane area as determined by the building official is installed in the under-
floor spaces.
1211.3.4.1 Ventilation. Crawl spaces and similar under-floor spaces shall be
provided with ventilation complying with Section 1203.
1211.3.4.2 Soil-gas-retarder. The exposed soil in under-floor spaces shall be
covered with a continuous layer of soil-gas-retarder. Such groundcover joints
shall overlap 6 inches (152 mm) and be sealed or taped. The edges of the
groundcover shall extend a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) up onto all foundation
walls enclosing the under-floor space and shall be attached and sealed to
foundation walls in an approved manner.
1211.3.4.3 Vent pipe riser. A plumbing tee or other approved connection shall be
inserted horizontally beneath the sheeting and connected to a 3- or 4-inch-
diameter (76 mm or 102 mm) fitting with a vertical vent pipe installed through the
sheeting. The vent pipe shall be extended up through the building floors, and shall
terminate at least 12 inches (305 mm) above the roof in a location at least 10 feet
(3.048 m) away from any window or other opening into the conditioned spaces of
the building at a point that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m) below the exhaust point
and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening in adjoining or adjacent
buildings.
1211.3.5 Sub-slab depressurization system. The following components of a sub-slab
depressurization system shall be installed during construction under basement or slab-on-
grade floors.
1211.3.5.1 Vent pipe riser. A minimum 3-inch-diameter (76 mm) ABS, PVC or
equivalent gas-tight pipe shall be embedded vertically into the sub-slab aggregate
or other permeable material before the slab is cast. A 'T' fitting or equivalent
method shall be used to ensure that the pipe opening remains within the sub-slab
permeable material. Alternatively, the 3-inch (76 mm) pipe shall be inserted
directly into an interior perimeter drain tile loop or through a sealed sump cover
where the sump is exposed to the sub-slab aggregate or connected to it through a
drainage system.
All vent pipes shall be extended up through the building floors and shall terminate
at least 12 inches (305 mm) above the surface of the roof in a location at least 10
feet (3.048 m) away from any window, air intake, or other opening into the
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 22 -
conditioned spaces of the building at a point that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m)
below the exhaust point, and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening
in adjoining or adjacent buildings. The discharge end of vent pipe terminations
shall be unobstructed and protected from small animal entry with a corrosion-
resistant screen having openings between ¼ inch (6.4 mm) and ½ inch (12.7 mm).
1211.3.5.2 Multiple vent pipes. In buildings where interior footings or other
barriers separate the sub-slab aggregate or other gas-permeable material, each
area shall be fitted with an individual vent pipe. Vent pipes shall connect to a
single vent that terminates above the roof or, in the alterantive, each individual
vent pipe shall terminate separately above the roof.
1211.3.6 Vent pipe drainage. All components of the radon vent pipe system shall be
installed to provide positive drainage to the ground beneath the slab or soil-gas retarder.
1211.3.7 Vent pipe accessibility. Radon vent pipes shall be accessible for fan installation
through an attic or other area outside the habitable space.
Exception:
The radon vent pipe need not be accessible in an attic space where an approved roof-top
electrical supply is provided.
1211.3.8 Vent pipe identification and notification. All exposed and visible interior
radon vent pipes shall be conspicuously identified with at least one label on each floor
and in attics provided with access openings. The label shall read substantially as follows:
Radon Reduction System. In addition to the preceding label, a notice shall be placed in a
conspicuous area near the vent pipe that includes the following statement:
“This radon reduction system is not required to be tested and is a 'passive' system,
relying entirely on natural ventilation. Occupants are advised to test for radon and take
remedial action as necessary by installing a continuously operating fan located in the
vent pipe (access typically provided in the attic) and connected to the nearby provided
electrical outlet. Call 1-800-767-radon for more information.”
1211.3.9 Combination foundations. Combination basement/crawl space or slab-on-
grade/crawl space foundations shall have separate radon vent pipes installed in each type
of foundation area. Each radon vent pipe shall terminate above the roof or shall be
connected to a single vent that terminates above the roof.
1211.3.10 Building depressurization. Joints in air ducts and plenums in unconditioned
spaces shall be substantially air tight and permanently sealed with an approved sealant,
mastic, or other approved methods. Thermal envelope air infiltration requirements shall
comply with the energy conservation provisions in the energy conservation code
currently enacted by the City. Firestopping shall be in conformance with the most recent
general building code enacted by the City.
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 23 -
1211.3.11 Provisions for future depressurization fan installation. Permanent
provisions shall be made for the future installation of an in-line fan to be connected to
every radon vent pipe. Such designated fan locations shall be outside of the conditioned
envelope of the building, such as in the attic, garage and similar locations, excluding
crawl spaces and other interior under-floor spaces. Designated locations shall
accommodate an unobstructed permanent cylindrical space with the following minimum
dimensions: 12 inches (305 mm) measured radially around the radon vent pipe along a
vertical distance of 30 inches (760 mm). Designated fan locations shall be permanently
accessible for servicing and maintenance. An electrical circuit shall be provided within 4
feet (1.219 m) of and within sight from designated fan locations. Such circuit shall have a
means of positive disconnection and be terminated in an approved electrical outlet in
accordance with the applicable current electric code.
1211.3.11.1 Depressurization fan system activation. When a passive system
constructed in accordance with this code is to be converted to an active system, an
approved in-line fan shall be installed in a designated fan location as specified in
Section 1211.11.1. Additionally, an approved permanent electric light fixture and
in-line pipe couplings that facilitate fan replacement shall be provided. The in-line
fan shall be designed to operate continuously for a period of not less than 5 years
and have a minimum air-flow rating as established by the building official. A
readily accessible manometer or other approved warning device that notifies
occupants of a fan malfunction by a visible or audible signal shall be installed
within the dwelling unit.”
(42) Section 1404.9 Vinyl siding is hereby amended in its entirety to read as:
“Section 1404.9 Vinyl siding shall not be installed on new buildings within the limits of
the City of Fort Collins.”
(43) Section 1404.12 Polypropylene siding is hereby amended in its entirety to read as:
“Section 1404.12 Polypropylene siding shall not be installed on new buildings within
the City limits.”
(44) Section 1405.13.2 Fenestration installation is amended by adding a new section to read
as follows:
“1405.13.2 Fenestration installation. For all new construction and additions, all new
fenestration installations shall be in accordance with American Architectural
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) Standards/Specifications for Windows, Doors and
Skylights and shall be supervised and inspected by an individual certified as an
Installation Master by Architectural Testing, Inc. (ATI), or other nationally recognized
agency.”
(45) Section 1503.4 Roof drainage is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 24 -
“1503.4 Roof drainage. All buildings shall have a controlled method of water disposal
from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5
feet (1524 mm) from foundation walls or to an approved drainage system. Design and
installation of roof drainage systems shall comply with Section 1503 of this code and
Sections 1106 and 1108, as applicable, of and the International Plumbing Code.”
(46) Section 1503.6 Crickets and saddles is amended by adding a new exception number two
to read as follows:
“1503.6 Crickets and saddles. A cricket or saddle shall be installed on the ridge side of
any chimney or penetration greater than 30 inches (762 mm) wide as measured
perpendicular to the slope. Cricket or saddle coverings shall be sheet metal or of the same
material as the roof covering.
Exceptions:
1. Unit skylights installed in accordance with Section 2405.5 and flashed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions shall be permitted to be installed
without a cricket or saddle.
2. Re-roofing per section 1510.”
(47) Section 1505.1 General is amended to read as follows.
“1505.1 New Construction. The roof-covering classification on any new structure
regulated by this code shall be Class A.
Exceptions:
1. Noncombustible roof coverings as defined in Section 1507.3, 1507.4, 1507.5 may
be applied in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications in place of a fire-
retardant roofing assembly.
2. Any Class B or Class C roof covering may be applied on any new construction
that is added to an existing building classified as a Group R, Division 3
Occupancy, provided the roof extremities of such existing building and new
construction are located a minimum distance of 5 feet from the nearest adjacent
property line and are a minimum distance of 10 feet from any other building.
3. Skylights and sloped glazing that comply with Chapter 24 or Section 2610.”
(48) Table 1505.1, Minimum Roof Covering Classifications for Types of Construction, is
hereby deleted.
(49) Section 1507.2.9.4 Sidewall flashing is amended by adding a new section read as
follows:
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 25 -
“1507.2.9.4 Sidewall flashing. Flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be by the step-
flashing method. The flashing shall be a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) high and 4
inches (102 mm) wide. At the end of the vertical sidewall the step flashing shall be turned
out in a manner that directs water away from the wall and onto the roof and/or gutter.
Exception:
Re-roofing where step flashing would require removal of siding material, provided
adequate flashing is installed.”
(50) Section 1507.2.9.5 Other flashing is amended by adding a new section read as follows:
“1507.2.9.5 Other flashing. Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soil stack,
vent pipe and chimney flashing shall be applied according to the asphalt shingle
manufacturer’s printed instructions.”
(51) Section 1510.1 General is amended by adding two paragraphs at the end to read as
follows:
“No portion of an existing nonrated roof covering may be permanently replaced or
covered with more than one square of nonrated roof covering.”
Any existing roof covering system may be replaced with a roof covering of the same
materials and classification, provided the replacement roof covering has a minimum
rating of Class C.”
(52) Section 1608.2 Ground snow load, the first sentence is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“1608.2 Ground Snow Loads. The ground snow loads to be used in determining the
design snow loads for roofs shall be shall be 30 psf.”
(53) Section 1609.3 Basic wind speed, the first sentence is hereby amended to read as follows:
“1609.3 Basic wind speed. The basic wind speed, in mph, for the determination of the
wind loads shall be 100 miles per hour (161 kph) as determined by Figures 1609A,
1609B, and 1609C.”
(54) Section 1804.3.1 Final Grading is amended by adding a new section to read as follows:
“1804.3.1 Final Grading. Final grading adjacent to the foundation shall be compacted
sufficiently and in such a manner that it is not undermined or subject to significant
settlement or displacement due to improper placement of backfill.”
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 26 -
(55) Section 2406.4.7 Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“2406.4.7 Glazing adjacent to stair landings. Glazing adjacent to the stair landings
where the glazing is less than 36 inches (914 mm) above the landing and within 60 inches
(1524 mm) horizontally of the top or bottom tread shall be considered a hazardous
location.
Exception: The glazing is protected by a guard complying with Section 1013 and 1607.8
where the plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the guard.”
(56) Section 2902.1.3 Touch-free toilet facilities is amended by adding a new section read as
follows:
“2902.1.3 Touch-free toilet facilities. Toilet facilities installed for occupancies
associated with food preparation or food service to the public shall be provided with:
1. Automatic touch-free water control valves on lavatories.
2. Automatic touch-free paper towel dispensers.
3. Toilet facilities exit doors that allow exiting without requiring touching by hand
of any door hardware such as knobs, levers, sliding bolts, latches and similar
devices.
Exception: Toilet facilities designed as a single occupant use may be provided with exit
door locking hardware to afford privacy.”
(57) Section 2902.2 Separate facilities is amended to read as follows:
“2902.2 Separate facilities. Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities
shall be provided for each sex.
Exceptions:
1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units.
2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total
occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 30 or less.
3. Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the
maximum occupant load is 100 or less.
4. Multiple single-user Unisex facilities may be used provided total fixture count as
calculated per 2902.1 is satisfied.”
(58) Section 3109.6 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds is hereby added
to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 27 -
“3109.6 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds. Decorative pools,
fountains, and ponds which can contain water deeper than 24 inches (610 mm), shall be
protected by barriers installed in accordance with section 3109.4”.
(59) Chapter 36 Sustainable Building Construction Practices is amended by adding a new
chapter read as follows:
“Chapter 36 Sustainable Building Construction Practices
3601 General
3601.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern sustainable building
construction practices for new construction and additions and remodels over 5,000 square
feet that require a building permit, unless otherwise noted.
3602 Resource Efficiency
3602.1 Construction waste management. For new buildings and additions over 2,500
square feet or remodels over 2,500 square feet, a construction waste management plan
acceptable to the building official that includes recycling of concrete and masonry, wood,
metals and cardboard, is required at the time of application for a building permit. The
construction waste management plan shall be implemented and conspicuously posted on
the construction site. Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through receipts and
signed affidavits. Substantive changes to the plan shall be subject to prior approval by the
building official.
3602.1.1 Building demolitions. Buildings or portions of buildings which are
removed shall be processed in such a way as to safely remove all asbestos and
lead paint contaminants. Where possible, all remaining materials, such as doors,
windows, cabinets, and fixtures, concrete and masonry, wood, metals, and
cardboard, shall be recycled. Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through
receipts and signed affidavits.
3602.2 Certified tropical hardwood. All tropical hardwoods used in new construction,
additions and alterations requiring a building permit, shall be certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council or other approved agency. Certification demonstrating compliance
shall be required with delivery of such materials and shall be available for inspection.
3603 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
3603.1 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
3603.1.1 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Design. Prior to and
during construction, reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize the release of
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 28 -
particulates and accumulation of debris, and the specific requirements of this
section shall apply.
3603.1.1.1 Air handling system access. The arrangement and location of
air handling system components including, but not limited to, air handler
units, fans, coils and condensate pans, shall allow access for cleaning and
repair of the air handling surfaces of such components. Piping, conduits,
and other building components shall not be located so as to obstruct the
required access.
3603.1.1.2 Durability of air handling surfaces. Surfaces exposed to
airflow within air handling systems shall be constructed of materials that
are resistant to deterioration and will not break away, crack, peel, flake
off, or show evidence of delamination or continued erosion when tested in
accordance with the erosion test in UL 181.
3603.1.1.3 Airstream surfaces. Materials exposed to airflow within
ducts, within air plenums, or on top of suspended ceilings, shall not break
away, crack, peel, flake off, or show evidence of delamination or
continued erosion when tested in accordance with the erosion test in UL
181.
3603.1.2 New Building pollutant flush-out. After all interior finishes are installed, the
building shall be flushed out by ventilating at a minimum rate of 0.30 cfm per ft2 of
outside air or the design outdoor airflow rate determined from Chapter 4 of the IMC,
whichever is greater, for at least 14 days while maintaining an internal temperature of at
least 60°F, and relative humidity not higher than 60 percent. Occupancy shall be
permitted to start 1 day after start of the flush-out, provided that flush-out continues for
the full 14 days. The building shall not be “baked out” by increasing the temperature of
the space above the occupied set point. Where continuous ventilation is not possible, the
aggregate of flush-out periods shall be equivalent to 14 days of continuous ventilation.
Flush-out reports shall be provided to the building official prior to approval.
Exception: All residential buildings.
3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials. All construction materials,
including but not limited to floor coverings and site-applied finishes, including sealants
and adhesives, resilient flooring, carpeting and pad, site-applied paints, stains and
varnishes, structural wood panels, hardwood veneer plywood, particle board and fiber
board building products, and insulation shall meet specified volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions limits in accordance with relevant standards California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) 01350; GREENGUARD Environmental Institute GGPS.001
standard for building materials and finishes, and Green Seal® standards. Documentation
demonstrating compliance shall be required with delivery of such materials and shall be
available for inspection.
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 29 -
Exception: For alterations to existing buildings, carpeting and pad, structural
wood panels, hardwood, veneer plywood, particle board and fiber board building
products and insulation are not subject to this requirement.
3603.3 Acoustical control. Minimum requirements for exterior-to-interior sound
transmission, interior sound transmission, and background sound levels in new
construction and additions thereto, except as noted hereunder, shall be provided as
specified herein.
3603.3.1 Sound transmission. Buildings and tenant spaces shall comply with the
following sound transmission requirements:
Exceptions:
1. Portions of buildings or structures that have the interior environment open
to the exterior environment.
2. Concession stands and toilet facilities in Group A-4 and A-5 occupancies.
3603.3.1.1 Exterior sound transmission. Where a Group A1, A3, E and I
occupancy building, a Group B occupancy building used for educational
purposes, or a Group R occupancy building is constructed at a location listed
herein, the wall assemblies making up the building thermal envelope shall have a
composite sound transmission class (STCc) rating of 39 or greater in the following
locations:
1. within 500 feet (152 m) of a multi-lane highway designed for high-speed
travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, or
other regulations requiring vehicles to stop; fire stations; heavy industrial or
manufacturing areas or facilities; commercial storage facilities with back-up
alarms; outdoor music amphitheaters; or sports arena or stadium;
2. within 250 feet (76 m) of a roadway containing 4 or more traffic lanes; or
3. within 1,000 feet (305 m) of an active railway.
3603.3.1.2 Interior sound transmission. Interior wall and floor/ceiling
assemblies, separating interior rooms and spaces shall be designed in accordance
with the following requirements:
1. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating adjacent tenant spaces, tenant
spaces and public places, hotel rooms, motel rooms, patient rooms in nursing
homes and hospitals, and adjoining classrooms shall have a composite STC rating
of 50 or greater.
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 30 -
2. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating classrooms from rest rooms
and showers shall have a composite STC rating of 53 or greater.
3. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating classrooms from music
rooms, mechanical rooms, cafeterias, gymnasiums, and indoor swimming pools
shall have a composite STC rating of 60 or greater.
Exception: Residential Group R occupancies addressed in Section 1207 of this
code.
3603.3.1.3 Background Sound. The average background sound levels within
unoccupied rooms (from heating, ventilating and air conditioning and other
building systems) shall be below the maximum A-weighted sound level for
specific occupancies from Table 3603 below. This shall be confirmed by spot
checks during the commissioning process.
Table 3603 Maximum Allowable Background Sound in Rooms
Occupancy Maximum
A-weighted sound
level (dBa)
Small auditoriums (≤500 seats) 39
Large auditoriums, large live indoor theaters, and large churches (for very good speech articulation)
(>500 seats)
35
TV and broadcast studios (close microphone pickup only) 35
Small live indoor theaters (≤ 500 seats) 35
Private residences:
Bedrooms
Apartments
Family rooms and living rooms
39
48
48
Schools:
Lecture and classrooms
Core learning space with enclosed volume ≤ 20,000 cu ft (<566 cu m)
Core learning space with enclosed volume > 20,000 cu ft (>566 cu m)
Open-plan classrooms
35
40
35
Hotels/motels:
Individual rooms or suites
Meeting/banquet rooms
Service support areas
44
44
57
Office buildings:
Offices
executive
small, private
large, with conference tables
Conference rooms
Large
Small
Open-plan areas
Business machines, computers
Public circulation
44
48
44
39
- 31 -
Wards
Operating rooms
Laboratories
Corridors
Public areas
44
44
53
53
52
Movie theaters ≤ 500 seats 48
Churches, small (≤500 seats) 44
Courtrooms 44
Libraries 48
Restaurants 52
Light maintenance shops, industrial plant control rooms, kitchens, and laundries 62
Shops and garages 67
3604 Commissioning, Operations & Maintenance
3604.1 Building commissioning. For new buildings with a gross floor of greater than
15,000 ft2 (1,395 m2) and additions with a gross floor of greater than 15,000 ft2 (1,395
m2), commissioning shall be performed in accordance with this section. A
commissioning process shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the
building project that verifies that the delivered building and its components, assemblies,
and systems comply with the documented owner project requirements (OPR).
Procedures, documentation, tools and training shall be provided to the building operating
staff to sustain features of the building assemblies and systems for the service life of the
building. This material shall be assembled and organized into a systems manual that
provides necessary information to the building operating staff to operate and maintain all
commissioned systems identified with the building project. The owner shall retain the
system manual and final commissioning report described below. An electronic formatted
copy of the final commissioning report shall be provided to the building official.
The following commissioning activities shall be completed prior to approval:
1. The owner shall designate an approved project commissioning authority
(CxA) to lead, review, and oversee completion of the commissioning process
activities.
2. The owner, in conjunction with the design team as necessary, shall
develop the owner’s project requirements (OPR) to guide the CxA. The OPR
shall be distributed to all parties participating in the project programming, design,
construction, and operations, and the commissioning team members.
3. The design team shall develop the basis of design (BOD).
4. The CxA shall:
a. review the both the OPR and BOD for clarity and completeness,
b. incorporate construction phase commissioning requirements into
project specifications and other construction documents developed by the
design team,
c. develop and implement a commissioning plan containing all
required forms and procedures for the complete testing of all equipment,
systems, and controls included in Section 3604.1.1,
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 32 -
d. verify the installation and performance of the systems to be
commissioned,
e. complete a final commissioning report satisfactory to the building
official,
f. verify the owner requirements for training operating personnel and
building occupants are completed, and
g. verify that a system manual in a form satisfactory to the building
official has been prepared. At a minimum, the system manual shall
include operations and maintenance documentation and full warranty
information, and shall provide operating staff the information needed to
understand and operate the commissioned systems as designed.
3604.1.1 Systems. The following systems, if included in the building project, shall be
commissioned:
1. heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, indoor-air-quality, and refrigeration systems
and associated controls;
2. building thermal envelope systems, components, and assemblies to verify thermal,
air, and moisture integrity;
3. all lighting controls and shading controls;
4. service water heating systems;
5. renewable energy systems;
6. background sound levels;
7. cooling towers water use.”
(60) Chapter 35 Referenced Standards is hereby amended by adding the following additional
referenced standard in alphabetical sequence:
CDPH California Department of Public Health
1615 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814
CDPH 01350 Standard Method for Testing VOC emissions from indoor sources
Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC)
materials
FSC Forest Stewardship Council U.S. (FSC-US)
212 Third Avenue North, Suite 504
Minneapolis, MN 55401
GEI GREENGUARD Environmental Institute
2211 Newmarket Parkway, Suite 110
Marietta, GA 30067
GGPS.001.GREENGUARD IAQ Standard for Building Materials, Finishes and Furnishings
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 33 -
Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC)
materials
Green Seal®
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 827
Washington, DC 20036-5525
GS-11 Paintings and Coatings
GS-43 Recycled Content Latex Paints
Referenced in Amended 12 IBC Section 3603.2 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC)
materials
IgCC PV 2-10 International Green Construction Code® Sections 202, 3603.
(61) Appendix C GROUP U AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS is adopted in its entirety.
(62) Appendix E SUPPLEMENTARY ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, is adopted in
its entirety.
(63) Appendix I PATIO COVERS is adopted in its entirety.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
ORDINANCE NO. 019, 2014,
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REPEALING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (IECC)
AND ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL
ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, since 1924, the City has reviewed, amended and adopted the latest
nationally recognized building standards available for the times; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of City staff, the City Council has determined that it
is in the best interests of the City to align the five interconnected basic construction codes under
one publication year; and
WHEREAS, the five interconnected basic construction codes are the International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International
Fuel Gas Code, and International Energy Conservation Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 2012 publication year of the five
interconnected basic construction codes ought to be adopted and that their counterpart codes
previously adopted should be repealed, both in order to align the publication years of the codes
and also because the 2012 publications contain improvements in construction code regulation;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a significant public outreach program, working
with the regulated construction industry and building professionals; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the five interconnected basic construction codes has been
presented to and recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Commission on Disability,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Building Review
Board, the Electric Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens
of the City that more stringent insulation rating requirements should be established in order to
conserve energy and reduce monthly utility bills; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the City and its citizens that the 2009 International Energy Conservation
Code, as amended be repealed, and that in its place, the 2012 International Energy Conservation
Code be adopted, with amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 2 -
Section 1. That Section 5-26(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(c) Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-16-202,
C.R.S., and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, the City Council hereby repeals the 2009
International Energy Conservation Code (2009 IECC), and adopts, as the energy conservation
code of the City, the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (2012 IECC) published by
the International Code Council, as amended by the City, which shall have the same force and
effect as though set forth in full herein and which shall apply exclusively to the design and
construction of all buildings that are classified as residential buildings not more than three (3)
stories above grade and their systems; new portions of such existing buildings and their systems;
and new systems and equipment in such existing buildings, exclusive of detached one- and two-
family dwellings, multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses), for the purpose of establishing
minimum requirements for minimum energy efficiency.
Section 2. That Section 5-31 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5-31. Amendments and deletions to code.
The 2012 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE adopted in § 5-26 is hereby
amended in the following respects:
COMMERCIAL
(1) Section C101.1 Title is amended to read as follows:
“C101.1 Title. This code shall be known as the International Energy Conservation Code
of the City of Fort Collins and shall be cited as such. It is referred to herein as ‘this code.”
(2) Section C101.4 Applicability is amended by the addition of a second paragraph to read as
follows:
“Information contained in the amended Commercial Sections: C101.1 Title; C101.4.3.1
Energy assessments, C103.6 Permits; C107 Fees; C107.3 Work commencing before
permit; C109 Board of Appeals; C110 Violations; C110.2 Work commencing before
permit issuance; C202 Definitions; C301.4 Exterior and Interior design parameters;
C402.2 Specific insulation requirements, shall be applicable to the corresponding
Residential Sections and shall have the same meaning.”
(3) Section C101.4.3.1 Energy assessment, is hereby added to read as follows:
“C101.4.3.1 Energy assessment. Prior to any alterations, an energy assessment shall be
required and submitted to the building official.
Exceptions: Energy assessments are not required in the following cases:
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 3 -
1. Buildings for which the first Certificate of Occupancy was issued after
October 2010.
2. First-time interior finishes.
3. A building that has undergone an energy assessment within the previous
three years.
4. Alterations with a construction valuation of less than $50,000.”
(4) Section C103.6 Permits is added to read as follows:
“C103.6 Permits. Procedures related to permits, required inspections, payment of fees
and obtaining required approvals shall be as set forth in Section 105 of the adopted
International Building Code, entitled ‘Permits’.”
(5) Section C107 Fees is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“C107 Fees
C107 Payment of fees. All items relating to fees shall be as specified in Section 109 of
the adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Fees’.”
(6) Section C107.3 Work commencing before permit issuance is hereby deleted.
(7) Section C109 Board of Appeals is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“C109.1 General. Appeals of decisions, determinations and interpretations of this code
shall be made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 113 of the adopted
International Building Code, entitled ‘Board of Appeals’.”
(8) Section C110 Violations is added to read as follows:
“C110.1 Violations. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply
with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building
or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the
building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the penalties and fines specified
in Section 1-15 of the City Code.”
(9) Section C110.2 Work commencing before permit issuance is hereby added to read as
follows:
“C110.2 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set
forth in 110.1, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s),
commences any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit,
shall be subject to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall
be equal in amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 4 -
than $1,000 for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such
violation repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee
or double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater,
for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation.
Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the
City Code.”
(10) Section C202 DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical sequence as follows:
“CONTINUOUS AIR BARRIER: The combination of interconnected materials,
assemblies, and flexible sealed joints and components of the building thermal envelope
that provides air tightness to a specified permeability.
ELECTRIC HEAT: An indoor environmental primary heat source that is electric. A
ground-source electric heat pump designed by a licensed professional engineer shall not
be considered electric heat.
NON-ELECTRIC HEAT: An indoor environmental primary heat source that is gas or
that is a ground-source electric heat pump designed by a licensed professional engineer to
operate without the use of supplemental electric resistance heat.”
(11) Section C301.4 Exterior and Interior Local Design Parameters is added to read as
follows:
“Exterior and Interior Local Design Parameters.
Winter Outdoor, Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 6
Winter Indoor, Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 72
Summer, Outdoor Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 90
Summer, Indoor Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 75
Summer, Outdoor Design Wet-bulb (
o
F) = 62
Summer, Indoor Design Wet-bulb (
o
F) = 62
Degree Days heating = 6368
Degree days cooling = 479
Fort Collins is in Climate Zone 5.”
(12) Section C402.1.1 Insulation and fenestration criteria is hereby amended by the addition
of an exception to read as follows:
“Exception: For buildings using electric heat at the power density of 1.5 Watts per
square foot or greater, the building thermal envelope values in Table C402.2(3), shall be
mandatory.”
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 5 -
(13) Section C402.1.2 U-Factor alternative is hereby amended by the addition of an
exception to read as follows:
“Exception: For buildings using electric heat at the power density of 1.5 Watts per
square foot or greater, the building thermal envelope values in Table C402.2(3), shall be
mandatory.”
(14) Section C402.2 Specific insulation requirements is hereby amended by adding a second
paragraph to read as follows:
“Insulation installation requirements (Mandatory). In addition to the requirements of
Section C402.1, insulation shall meet the specific requirements of Sections C402.2.1
through C402.2.8. All insulation shall be installed to meet Residential Energy Services
Network (RESNET) Grade I standard.
Exception: RESNET Grade II is acceptable for cavity insulation in exterior walls that
include continuous rigid insulating sheathing and/or insulated siding with a minimum R-
value of 5, and rim joists.”
(15) Table C402.2(3) Building thermal envelope is hereby added to read as follows:
“TABLE C402.2(3) (Mandatory)
BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC HEAT
Opaque Elements Assembly Max. Insulation Min. R-Value
Roofs
Insulation Entirely above Deck
Metal Building
Attic and Other
U-0.039
U-0.035
U-0.021
R-25.0 ci
R-19.0 + R-11.0 Ls
R-49.0
Walls, Above Grade
Massa
Metal Building
Steel Framed
Wood Framed and Other
U-0.080
U-0.052
U-0.055
U-0.051
R-13.3 ci
R-13.0 + R-13.0 ci
R-13.0 + R-10.0 ci
R-13.0 + R-7.5 ci
Wall, Below Grade
U-0.092 R-10.0 ci
Floors
Mass
Steel Joist
U-0.064
U-0.026
R-12.5 ci
R-30.0 + R-7.5 ci
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 6 -
Wood Framed and Other
U-0.032
R-38.0
Slab-On-Grade Floors
Unheated
Heated
F-0.540
F-0.440
R-10 for 24 in.
R-15.0 for 36 in. + R-5 ci below
Opaque Doors
Swinging
Non-Swinging
U-0.400
U-0.400
The following definitions apply: ci = continuous insulation, Ls = liner system, NR = No (insulation) requirement.
a Mass walls with a heat capacity greater than 12 Btu/ft2∙oF which are unfinished or finished only on the interior do
not need to be insulated.
b Nonmetal framing includes framing materials other than metal with or without metal reinforcing or cladding.
c Metal framing includes metal framing with or without thermal break. The “all other” subcategory includes
operable windows, fixed windows, and non-entrance doors.”
(16) Section C402.2.4 Thermal resistance of below-grade walls is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“C402.2.4 Thermal resistance of below-grade walls. The minimum thermal resistance
(R-value) of the insulating material installed in, or continuously on, the below-grade
walls shall be R-10 and shall extend to a depth of 10 feet (3,048 mm) below the outside
finish ground level, or to the level of the floor, whichever is less.”
(17) Section C402.2.6 Slabs on grade is amended to read as follows:
“C402.2.6 Slabs on grade. The minimum thermal resistance (R-value) of the insulation
around the perimeter of unheated slab-on-grade floors shall be R-10 for 24 inches below.
The insulation shall be placed on the outside of the foundation or on the inside of a
foundation wall. The insulation shall extend downward from the top of the slab for a
Fenestration Assembly Max. U
Vertical Fenestration, (up to 40% of Wall
maximum)
Nonmetal framing: allb
Metal fr: curtainwall/stonefrontc
Metal framing: entrance doorc
Metal framing: all otherc
U-0.25
U-0.35
U-0.70
U-0.45
Skylight (up to 3% of Roof maximum)
SHGC
Uall-0.50
U-0.40
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 7 -
minimum distance as shown in the table or to the top of the footing, whichever is less, or
downward to at least the bottom of the slab and then horizontally to the interior or
exterior for the total distance shown in the table.”
(18) Section C402.4 Air leakage (Mandatory) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C402.4 Air leakage (Mandatory). The building thermal envelope shall be designed and
constructed with a continuous air barrier that complies with the following requirements
to control air leakage into, or out of, the conditioned space. The boundary limits and size
of the surface area (floor, wall, and ceiling or roof) of the building air barrier, and of the
zone or zones to be tested for maximum building air infiltration and exfiltration, shall be
clearly identified on the approved construction drawings. All air barrier components of
each building thermal envelope assembly shall be clearly identified on construction
documents and the joints, interconnections, and penetrations of the air barrier
components shall be detailed and shall comply with the following:
1. The air barrier shall be continuous throughout the building thermal envelope (at the
lowest floor, exterior walls, and ceiling or roof), with all joints and seams sealed and
with sealed connections between all transitions in planes and changes in materials and
at all penetrations.
2. The air barrier component of each assembly shall be joined and sealed in a flexible
manner to the air barrier component of adjacent assemblies, allowing for the relative
movement of these assemblies and components.
3. The air barrier shall be capable of withstanding positive and negative combined
design wind, fan, and stack pressures on the air barrier without damage or
displacement, and shall transfer the load to the structure, and shall not displace
adjacent materials under full load.
4. The air barrier shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
and in such a manner as to achieve the performance requirements.
5. Where lighting fixtures with ventilation holes or other similar objects are to be
installed in such a way as to penetrate the continuous air barrier, provisions shall be
made to maintain the integrity of the continuous air barrier.
Compliance of the continuous air barrier for the opaque building thermal envelope shall
be demonstrated by the following:
1. Materials. Using air-barrier materials that have an air permeability not to
exceed 0.004 cfm/ft
2
under a pressure differential of 0.3 in. water (1.57 lb/ft
2
)
(0.02 L/s
.
m
2
under a pressure differential of 75 Pa) when tested in accordance
with ASTM E2178;
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 8 -
2. Assemblies. Using assemblies of materials and components that have an
average air leakage not to exceed 0.04 cfm/ft
2
under a pressure differential of 0.3
in. water (1.57 lb/ft
2
) (0.2 L/s
.
m
2
under a pressure differential of 75 Pa) when
tested in accordance with ASTM E2357 or ASTM E1677;
3. Building. Testing the completed building and documenting that the air
leakage rate of the building thermal envelope does not exceed 0.25 cfm/ft
2
under a
pressure differential of 0.3 in. water (1.57 lb/ft
2
) (0.02 L/s
.
m
2
under a pressure
differential of 75 Pa) in accordance with the most current version of the City of
Fort Collins Building Air Leakage Test Protocol for commercial buildings or City
of Fort Collins Building Code Protocol for New Multifamily Building Air
Tightness Testing. Documentation of the testing results shall be submitted to the
building official prior to approval.”
(19) Section C402.4.1 Air barriers is hereby deleted in its entirety.
(20) Section C402.4.2 Air barrier penetrations is hereby deleted.
(21) Section C402.4.3 Air leakage of fenestration is hereby deleted.
(22) Section C402.4.4 Doors and access openings is hereby deleted.
(23) Section C402.4.5 Air intakes, exhaust openings is hereby deleted.
(24) Section C402.4.6 Loading dock weather-seals is hereby amended to read as follows:
“C402.4.6 Loading dock weather-seals. Cargo doors and loading dock doors shall be
equipped with weather-seals to restrict infiltration.
(25) Section C405.2.1.2.1 Occupant sensor controls is hereby added to read as follows:
“C405.2.1.2.1 Occupant sensor controls. In new construction and additions that require
a building permit, occupant sensor controls shall be provided to automatically reduce
connected lighting power by not less than 50 percent during periods when no occupants
are present in the following locations:
1. corriders and enclosed stairwells;
2. storage stack areas not open to the public;
3. library stack areas; and
4. parking garages.
Lighting in means of egress shall comply with the luminance or uniformity criteria
required by the International Building Code when occupied.
Exception: Automatic power reduction shall not be used to control battery back-
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 9 -
up emergency lighting and exit signage.”
(26) Section C405.2.3 number 3 is hereby deleted.
(27) Section C405.2.4 Exterior lighting controls is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
“C405.2.4 Exterior lighting controls. In addition to any other applicable requirements
of this IECC, all outdoor lighting controls shall comply with the following requirements.
For lighting of building façades, parking lots, garages, canopies (sales and non-sales), and
all outdoor sales areas, automatic controls shall be installed to reduce the sum of all
lighting power (in watts) by a minimum of 50 percent two hours after normal business
closing, and to turn off outdoor lighting within 30 minutes after sunrise.
Exceptions:
1. Lighting required by a statute, ordinance, or regulation duly adopted for
the protection of public health, safety and/or human life, including but not limited
to, emergency lighting.
2. Lighting that is controlled by a motion sensor and photo-control.
3. Lighting for facilities that have equal lighting requirements at all hours
and are designed to operate continuously.
4. Temporary outdoor lighting.
5. Externally illuminated signs and signs that are either internally illuminated
or have integral lamps.”
(28) Section C405.2.5 Sleeping unit controls is hereby added to read as follows:
“C405.2.5 Sleeping unit controls. In hotels and motels with over 20 guest rooms, the
lighting switched outlets, permanently wired luminaires, television, and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning system equipment serving each guest room shall be
automatically controlled so that lighting, switched outlets, permanently wired luminaires,
and televisions will be turned off and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system
set point raised at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees centigrade) in the cooling mode
and lowered at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees centigrade) in the heating mode
whenever the guest room is unoccupied.
C405.2.5.1 Sleeping unit bathroom controls. All permanently wired luminaires located
in bathrooms within sleeping units in hotels, motels, boarding houses or similar buildings
shall be equipped with occupant sensors that require manual intervention to energize
circuits.”
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 10 -
(29) Section C405.8 Electricity distribution design is hereby added to read as follows:
“C405.8 Electricity distribution design requirements and load type isolation. Electric
distribution systems within, on or adjacent to and serving a new building shall be
designed in such fashion that each primary panel supplies only one electricity load type
as defined in Sections C405.8.1 through C405.8.5. The energy load type served by each
distribution panel shall be clearly designated on the panel with the use served, and
adequate space shall be provided for installation of metering equipment or other data
collection devices, temporary or permanent, to measure the energy use associated with
each distribution panel.
Exceptions:
1. Buildings with less than 600 amp electric service are exempted from this
requirement.
2. Electrical systems that are designed and constructed in such fashion that the total
usage of each of the load types as described in Sections C405.8.1 through
C405.8.5 shall be permitted to be measured through the use of installed sub-
meters or other equivalent methods as approved.
3. Group S and Group U occupancies
C405.8.1 Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system electric load. This
category shall include all electricity used to heat, cool, and provide ventilation to the
building including, but not limited to, fans, pumps, and cooling energy.
C405.8.2 Lighting system electric load. This category shall include all electricity for
interior and exterior lighting used in occupant spaces and common areas.
C405.8.3 Plug loads. This category shall include all electricity use by devices, electric
appliances and equipment connected to convenience receptacle outlets.
C405.8.4 Process loads. This category shall include all electricity used by any single
load associated with activities within the building, such as, but not limited to, data
centers, manufacturing equipment and commercial kitchens, that exceed 5% of the total
energy use of the whole building.”
C405.8.5 Miscellaneous loads. This category shall include all electricity use for all other
building operations and other operational loads.”
(30) Section C408 System commissioning is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to
read as follows:
“C408 System Commissioning shall be in conformance with Section 3604 of the
adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Commissioning, Operations and
Maintenance’.”
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 11 -
RESIDENTIAL
(31) Section R401.2 Compliances is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R401.2 Compliance. Projects shall comply with “mandatory” Sections R401, R402.2 ,
R402.4, R402.5, R403.1, R403.2.2, R403.2.3, and R403.3 through R403.9 and with either
sections identified as “prescriptive” or the performance approach in Section R405.”
(32) TABLE R402.1.1 Insulation and Fenestration Requirements by Component is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“TABLE R402.1.1
INSULATION AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT
HEATING
SYSTEM
TYPE
FENESTRATION
U-FACTORb
SKYLIGHTb
U-FACTOR
GLAZED
FENESTRATION
SHGC
CEILING
R-
VALUE
WOOD
FRAME
WALL
R-VALUE
f g
MASS
WALL
R-
VALUEg
FLOOR
R-
VALUE
e
BASEMENTc
WALL
R-VALUE
SLABd
R-
VALUE
&
DEPTH
CRAWLc
SPACE
WALL
R-
VALUE
Non-Electric
heat
0.32 0.55 NR 49 20 or
13 + 5
13/17 30 10/13h
15/19i
10,2
ft
15/19
Electric heat
0.30 0.55 NR 49 20+5 15/19 30 15/19 10,4
- 12 -
heat
Electric heat 0.30 0.55 0.026 0.048 0.060 0.033 0.050 0.055
a. Non-fenestration U-factors shall be obtained from measurement, calculation or an approved source.
b. When more than half the insulation is on the interior, the mass wall U-factor shall be the same as the frame wall U-
factor.”
(34) Section R402.2.1 Ceilings with attics spaces is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R402.2.1 Ceilings with attic spaces. When Section R402.1.1 would require R-38 in the
ceiling, R-30 shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement for R-38 wherever the full height
of uncompressed R-30 insulation extends over the wall top plate at the eaves. Similarly,
R-38 shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement for R-49 wherever the full height of
uncompressed R-38 insulation extends over the wall top plate at the eaves. This reduction
shall not apply to the U-factor alternative approach in Section R402.1.3 and the total UA
alternative in Section R402.1.4. At the eaves, the insulation extending over the exterior
wall top plate shall be R-19 minimum.”
(35) Section R402.2.3 Eave baffle is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R402.2.3 Eave baffle and blocks. For air permeable insulations in vented attics with
ventilation from open or box soffits, a baffle shall be installed to provide ventilation from
the soffit to the attic adjacent to each soffit or eave vent. In the case of continuous soffit
vents, enough baffles shall be installed to maintain the required attic ventilation from the
soffit. Baffles shall maintain an opening equal or greater than the size of the vent. The
ventilation baffle shall extend over the top of the attic insulation between rafters or
trusses, maintaining a minimum 1 inch clear opening below the roof deck and sufficient
space for the minimum depth of attic insulation. The baffle shall be permitted to be any
solid material. All other spaces between rafters or trusses shall be blocked at the outside
edge of the exterior wall top plate, with air impermeable materials so as to contain the
attic insulation.”
(36) Section R402.2.7.1 Rim insulation requirements is hereby added to read as follows:
“R402.2.7.1 Rim insulation requirements All rim plates and rim joist which are part of
the thermal envelope shall be air-sealed. All rim plates and rim joist which are part of the
thermal envelope shall be insulated using spray foam materials to R-15 minimum when
the basement walls are insulated to 10/13 in accordance with Table R402.1.1.”
(37) Section 402.4.1 Building thermal envelope is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
“R402.4.1 Building thermal envelope. The building, or effective August 1, 2014,
individual dwelling units, shall be tested and verified as having an air leakage rate not
exceeding 3 air changes per hour. Testing shall be conducted with a blower door at a
pressure of 0.2 inches w.g. (50 Pascals) in accordance with Section 802 of the RESNET
Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Standards or City of Fort Collins
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 13 -
Building Code Protocol for New Multifamily Building Air Tightness Testing. Where
required by the building official, testing shall be conducted by an approved third party. A
written report of the results of the test shall be signed by the party conducting the test and
provided to the building official. Isolation of attached garages from adjoining conditioned
areas shall be verified in accordance with City of Fort Collins protocols.
Testing shall occur after rough-in and after installation of penetrations of the building
thermal envelope, including but not limited to penetrations for utilities, plumbing,
electrical, ventilation and combustion appliances.
General requirements during testing:
1. Exterior windows and doors, fireplace and stove doors shall be closed, but not
sealed beyond the intended weather-stripping or other infiltration control
measures.
2. Dampers including exhaust, intake, makeup air, backdraft and flue dampers shall
be closed, but not sealed beyond intended infiltration control measures.
3. Interior doors, if installed at the time of the test, shall be open.
4. Exterior doors for continuous ventilation systems and heat recovery ventilators
shall be closed and sealed.
5. Heating and cooling systems, if installed at the time of the test, shall be turned off.
6. Supply and return registers, if installed at the time of the test, shall be fully open.
7. Combustion air inlets shall not be closed or otherwise obstructed.
8. Garage doors to the exterior shall be closed.
In additions or alterations to existing buildings, air sealing compliance shall be
considered acceptable when the items listed in Table R402.4.1.1, applicable to the
method of construction, are field-verified.”
(38) Section R402.5 Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“R402.5 Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC. The area-weighted average
maximum fenestration U-factor permitted, using trade-offs from Section R402.1.4 or
R405 shall be 0.40 for vertical fenestration and 0.75 for skylights.
(39) Section R403.2.1 Insulation is amended to read as follows:
“R403.2.1 Insulation. (Mandatory) Supply ducts in attics shall be insulated to a
minimum of R-8. All other ducts shall be insulated to a minimum of R-6.
Exception:
Ducts or portions thereof located completely inside the building thermal envelope.”
(40) Section R403.6 Equipment sizing (Mandatory) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 14 -
“R403.6 Equipment sizing (Mandatory) Heating and cooling systems shall be designed
in accordance with International Residential Code Section M1401.3 and performance
will be verified in accordance with International Residential Code Section M1309.”
(41) Section R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory). A minimum of 75 percent of the lamps in
permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or a minimum of 50
percent of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only LED lamps.
Exception: Low-voltage lighting shall not be required to utilize high-efficiency lamps.”
(42) Section R404.2 Occupant sensor controls, is hereby added to read as follows:
“R404.2 Occupant sensor controls. In multifamily buildings, occupant sensor controls
shall be provided to automatically reduce connected lighting power by not less than 50
percent during periods when no occupants are present in common corridors and common
enclosed stairwells.
Lighting in means of egress shall comply with the luminance or uniformity criteria
required by the International Building Code when occupied.
Exception: Automatic power reduction shall not be used to control battery back-up
emergency lighting and exit signage.”
(43) Chapter 6 REFERENCED STANDARDS is hereby amended by adding the following
additional referenced standard in alphabetical sequence:
IgCC PV 2-10 International Green Construction Code® Sections C405.2.1.2.1,
C405.2.5, C405.8.
RESNET® Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Systems Standards
Residential Energy Services Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 4561
Oceanside, CA 92052-4561
http://resnet.us
RESNET® reference standard Grade I and Grade II Insulation
Referenced in Amended 2012 IECC Section C402.2.
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 15 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 020, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REPEALING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC), AND ADOPTING THE
2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, since 1924, the City has reviewed, amended and adopted the latest
nationally recognized building standards available for the times; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of City staff, the City Council has determined that it
is in the best interests of the City to align the five interconnected basic construction codes under
one publication year; and
WHEREAS, the five interconnected basic construction codes are the International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International
Fuel Gas Code, and International Energy Conservation Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 2012 publication year of the five
interconnected basic construction codes ought to be adopted and that their counterpart codes
previously adopted should be repealed, both in order to align the publication years of the codes
and also because the 2009 publications contain improvements in construction code regulation;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a significant public outreach program, working
with the regulated construction industry and building professionals; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the five interconnected basic construction codes has been
presented to and recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Commission on Disability,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Building Review
Board, the Electric Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the City and its citizens that the 2009 International Residential Code be
repealed, and that in its place, the 2012 International Residential Code, be adopted, with
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 5-26(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-
16-202, C.R.S., and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, the City Council hereby repeals
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 2 -
the 2009 Edition of the International Residential Code, and adopts, as the residential
building code of the City, the 2012 International Residential Code published by the
International Code Council, as amended by the City, which shall have the same force and
effect as though set forth in full herein. The subject matter of the International
Residential Code adopted herein includes comprehensive provisions and standards for the
protection of the public health and safety by prescribing regulations governing the
construction, alteration, enlargement, relocation, replacement, repair, equipment, use and
occupancy, location, removal and demolition of, and its applicability is hereby limited to,
individual nonattached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family
dwellings (townhouses) not more than three (3) stories above grade in height with a
separate means of egress, and their accessory structures.
Section 2. That Section 5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 5-30 Amendments and deletions to code.
The 2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE adopted herein is hereby amended in
the following respects:
(1) Section R101.1 Title is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and
Two-family Dwellings of the City of Fort Collins and shall be cited as such and will be
referred to herein as “this code.”
(2) Section R102.4 Referenced codes and standards, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this
code shall be those that are listed in Section 101.4 of the International Building Code,
entitled ‘Referenced Codes’ and shall be considered part of the requirements of this code
to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between
provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code
shall apply.”
(3) Section R103 Department of Building Safety is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
“R103 Code Administration.
R103.1 Entity charged with code administration shall be as determined in accordance
with Section 103 of the International Building Code, entitled ‘Code Administration’.”
(4) Section R105.2 Work exempt from permit, items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 under
the heading of “Building” are amended or added to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 3 -
“Building:
1. ”One-story detached accessory structures used for lawn and garden equipment
storage, tool storage and similar uses, including arbors, pergolas, and similar structures,
provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m
2
)
or 8 feet (2.438 m) in
height, and the structures do not house flammable liquids in quantities exceeding 10
gallons (38 l) per building and are constructed entirely of noncombustible materials when
located less than 3 feet (0.914 m) from an adjoining property line.
2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.
3. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the
low side grade to the top of the wall, provided the horizontal distance to the next uphill
retaining wall is at least equal to the total height of the lower retaining wall, unless
supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.
4. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000
gallons (18,927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1.
5. Platforms intended for human occupancy or walking, sidewalks and driveways if
such structures are not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade, and are not
over any basement window or story below, and are not part of an accessible route.
6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish
work.
7. Prefabricated and portable swimming or wading pools, hot tubs or spas if such
structures are supported directly upon grade when the walls of such structures are entirely
above grade, and if such structures cannot contain water more than 24 inches (610 mm)
deep.
8. Swings and other playground equipment, including one elevated playhouse per lot
designed and used exclusively for play, not exceeding 64 square feet (5.9 m2)
of floor
area or 6 feet (1.82 m) in height as measured from the floor to the highest point of such
structure.
9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall which do not project more than
54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support.
Window replacement requiring no structural alteration. Window replacement requiring
no change in the window configuration which reduces the size of the window opening.
Window replacement when such work is determined not to be historically significant.
Storm window, storm door and rain gutter installation.
10. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area, that are not more than 30
inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling, and do not
serve the exit door required by Section R311.4.
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 4 -
11. Roofing repair or replacement work not exceeding one square (100 square feet) of
covering per building.
12. Replacement of nonstructural siding when the removal of siding is performed in
accordance with State laws regarding asbestos and lead paint.
13. Minor work valued at less than $500 when such minor work does not involve
alteration of structural components, fire-rated assemblies, plumbing, electrical,
mechanical or fire-extinguishing systems.
14. Decorative ponds, fountains and pools no more than 24 inches (610 mm) deep.”
(5) Section R105.2 Work exempt from permit, is further amended by deleting all headings
and references under Electrical, Gas, and Mechanical.
(6) Section R105.5 Expiration is hereby amended by adding a second paragraph to read as
follows:
“Both prior to and subsequent to the effective date of this code, any work authorized by a
permit regulated by this code or any other building construction code administered by the
building official that involves the construction or alteration of an exterior building
component, assembly or finish material, such as the foundation, wall and roof framing,
sheathing, siding, fenestration, and roof covering, shall be fully finished for permanent
outdoor exposure within 24 months of the date of issuance of such permit, regardless of
when the permit was issued.”
(7) Section R105.10 Premises Identification is hereby added to read as follows:
“R105.10 Premises Identification During Construction. The approved permit number
and street address number shall be displayed and be plainly visible and legible from the
public street or road fronting the property on which any new building is being
constructed.”
(8) Section R105.11 Transfer of permits, is hereby added to read as follows:
“R105.11 Transfer of permits. A current valid building permit may be transferred from
one party to another upon written application to the building official. When any
substantial changes are made to the original plans and specifications submitted with the
permit, as determined by the building official, a new plan review fee shall be paid as
calculated in accordance with Section R108. A fee of $50 shall be paid to cover
administrative costs for all building permit transfers. No change shall be made in the
expiration date of the original permit.”
(9) Section R106.1.3 Information for construction in flood hazard areas is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 5 -
“R106.1.3 Information for construction in flood hazard areas. For buildings or
structures regulated under the scope of this code that are in whole or in part located in
flood hazard areas, construction documents shall be submitted as established in
accordance with Chapter 10 of the City Code, entitled ‘Flood Prevention and
Protection’.”
(10) Section R106.1.4 Grading performance plans and certificate, is hereby added to read as
follows:
“R106.1.4 Grading performance plans and certificate. Every building permit
application for a new building regulated by this code shall be accompanied by a site
drainage/grading performance plan as prescribed by City standards. Drainage plans shall
be submitted to and approved by the City’s Storm Drainage department prior to the
issuance of the permit.”
(11) Section R106.3.1 Approval of construction documents, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“R106.3.1 Approval of construction documents. When the building official issues a
permit, the construction documents shall be approved in writing or by a stamp. One set of
construction documents so reviewed shall be retained by the building official. The other
set shall be returned to the applicant, shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to
inspection by the building official or his or her authorized representative.”
(12) Section R107, Temporary Structures and Uses, is deleted in its entirety.
(13) Section R108, FEES, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“R108 Fees
R108.1 Payment of fees. All items relating to fees shall be as specified in Section 109 of
the International Building Code, entitled ‘Fees’.”
(14) Section R109.1.7 Site Survey required, is hereby added to read as follows:
“R109.1.7 Site Survey required. A survey or improvement location certificate of the
site on which a new building or addition is to be constructed may be required by the
building official to verify that the structure is located in accordance with the approved
plans and any other regulations of the City.”
(15) Section R110.2 Change in use, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 6 -
“R110.2 Change in use. Changes in the character, use, or occupancy of an existing
structure shall not be made except in conformance with this code and the general building
code enacted by the City.”
(16) Section R112, Board of Appeals, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“R112 Board of Appeals
R112.1 General. Appeals of decisions, determinations and interpretations of this code
shall be made pursuant to the applicable provisions set forth in Section 113 of the
adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Board of Appeals’.”
(17) Section R113.4 Violation penalties, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R113.4 Violation penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to
comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a
building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of
the building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the penalties and fines specified
in Section 1-15 of the City Code.”
(18) Section R113.5 Work commencing before permit issuance is hereby added to read as
follows:
“R113.5 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set
forth in R113.4, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s),
commences any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit,
shall be subject to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall
be equal in amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more
than $1,000 for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such
violation repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee
or double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater,
for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation.
Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the
City Code.”
(19) Section R202, Definitions, terms are hereby amended or added in alphabetical sequence
in the following respects:
The term, “BASEMENT”, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“BASEMENT. That portion of a building located partly or completely below grade,
wherein the underside of the floor area above the basement floor is 72 inches (1829 mm)
or more above the surface of an approved permanent basement floor.”
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 7 -
The term, “CITY” is hereby added to read as follows:
“The word CITY shall mean the municipal corporation of Fort Collins, Colorado,
including its physical location and boundaries.”
The term, “CRAWL SPACE” is hereby added to read as follows:
“CRAWL SPACE. That portion of a building that is conditioned or non-conditioned
space located partly or completely below grade (excluding the under-floor space beneath
below-grade structural floor systems), wherein the underside of the adjacent finished
floor above is less than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the bottom surface of such crawl
space.”
The term, “DWELLING” is hereby amended to read as follows:
DWELLING. A building used exclusively for residential occupancy and for permitted
accessory uses, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multi-family
dwellings, and which contains: (a) a minimum of 800 square feet of floor area, or (b) in
the case of a dwelling to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot in the L-M-N, M-M-
N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B, C-C-N, C-C-R, H-C or E zone districts, a minimum of 400
square feet of floor area, so long as a dwelling already exists on the front portion of such
lot. The term dwelling shall not include hotels, motels, tents or other structures designed
or used primarily for temporary occupancy. Any dwelling shall be deemed to be a
principal building.”
The term, “DWELLING UNIT” is hereby amended to read as follows:
DWELLING UNIT. One or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least one bathroom,
designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate quarters for the exclusive use
of a single family for living, cooking and sanitary purposes, located in a single-family,
two-family or multi-family dwelling or mixed-use building.”
The term, “FAMILY” is hereby added to read as follows:
“FAMILY. Any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage, adoption,
guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a
single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating
facilities.”
The term, “FLOOR AREA” is hereby added to read as follows:
“FLOOR AREA. The area included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building
or portion thereof, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. The floor area of a building, or
portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area
under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.”
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 8 -
The term, “GRADE” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“GRADE. (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION). The lowest point of elevation of
the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk between the building and the
property line or, when the property line is more than 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building,
between the building and a line 5 feet (1.524 m) from the building.”
The term “ROOM, SLEEPING (BEDROOM”), is hereby added to read as follows:
“ROOM, SLEEPING (BEDROOM). A habitable space within a dwelling or other
housing unit designed primarily for the purpose of sleeping. The presence of a bed, cot,
mattress, convertible sofa or other similar furnishing used for sleeping purposes shall be
prima facie evidence that such space or room is a sleeping room. The presence of closets
and similar storage facilities shall not be considered a relevant factor in determining
whether or not a room is a sleeping room.”
The term “SITE”, is hereby added to read as follows:
“SITE. A parcel of land bounded by a property line or a designated portion of a public
right-of-way.”
The term, “TOWNHOUSE”, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“TOWNHOUSE: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of two or more
attached individual units each of which is separated from the other from the foundation to
the roof and is located entirely on a separately recorded and platted parcel of land (site)
bounded by property lines that is deeded exclusively for such single-family dwelling.”
(20) Section 301.1.3 Engineered Design is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R301.1.3 Engineered design. When a building of otherwise conventional light-frame
construction contains structural elements not conforming to this code, these elements
shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such
design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other
applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional
framed system. Engineered design, in accordance with the Building Code enacted by the
City, is permitted for all buildings, structures, and portions thereof included in the scope
of this code.”
(21) Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic Design criteria, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
GROUND
SNOW
LOAD
WIND
SPEED b
SEISMIC
DESIGN
CATE-
GORY
SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM
WINTER
DESIGN
TEMP
AIR
FREEZ-
ING
INDEX
e
MEAN
ANN-
UAL
TEMP.
f
FLOODd
HAZARDS
Weathering
a
Roof Ice
- 9 -
For SI: C = [( F)-32]/1.8.
a. “Weathering may require a higher strength concrete or grade of masonry than necessary to satisfy
the standard structural requirements of this code. The weathering column is based on the weathering index
(i.e. “severe”) for concrete as determined from the Weathering Probability Map [Figure R301.2 (3)]. The
grade of masonry units shall be determined from ASTM C 34, C 55, C 62, C 73, C 90, C 129, C 145, C 216
or C 652.
b. Wind exposure category shall be determined on a site-specific basis in accordance with Section
R301.2.1.4.
c. Decay is determined in accordance with Figure R301.2(7).
d. July 16, 1979 is the date of the City’s entry into the National Flood Insurance Program (date of
adoption of the first code or ordinance for management of flood hazard areas).
e. The 100-year return period air freezing index (BF-days) is established from Figure R403.3(2) or
from the 100-year (99 percent) value on the National Climatic Data Center data table Air Freezing Index-
USA Method (Base 32o Fahrenheit) at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/fpsf.html.
f. The mean annual temperature is established from the National Climatic Data Center data table
“Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32o Fahrenheit) at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/fpsf.html.”
(22) Section R301.2.1.5.2 Basic Wind Speed is hereby added, to read as follows:
“R301.2.1.5.2 Basic Wind Speed. The Special Wind Region as indicated on Figure
R301.2(4) of this code shall apply using a Basic Wind Speed of 100 miles per hour (161
kph) based on the exposure category as described in Section R301.2.1.4, or the equivalent
pressure thereto.”
(23) Section R302.1 Exterior walls, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R302.1 Exterior walls. Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior
walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1 as amended.”
(24) Section R302.1.1 Exterior wall finish materials, is hereby added to read as follows:
“R302.1.1 Exterior wall finish materials Walls of dwellings located within the fire
separation distance (location from property line) of 0 feet to less than 5 feet shall be
constructed of exterior finishes containing cementitious materials.
Exception: Dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed
in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D.”
(25) Table R302.1(1) Exterior Walls is hereby amended to read as follows:
TABLE R302.1 EXTERIOR WALLS
30psf
(1436.4pa)
100mph
(161 kph)
B
Severe
No
30 inches
(762mm)
Slight to
Moderate
None to
Slight
+6o F
(-14o C)
906
48.4
July 16,
1979
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 10 -
EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT
MINIMUM FIRE-RESISTANCE
RATING
MINIMUM FIRE
SEPARATION
DISTANCE
WALLS
FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED
1 HOUR-TESTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E 119
OR UL 263 WITH EXPOSURE
FROM BOTH SIDES
LESS THAN 3
FEET
NOT FIRE RESISTANCE
RATED
0 HOURS
3 FEET OR MORE
PROJECTIONS
FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED 1 HOUR ON THE UNDERSIDE
2 TO
3 FEET
NOT ALLOWED N/A
LESS THAN 2
FEET
OPENINGS IN
WALLS
NOT ALLOWED N/A
LESS THAN 3
FEET
UNLIMITED 0 HOURS 3 FEET OR MORE
PENETRATIO
NS
ALL
COMPLY WITH SECTION
R302.4
LESS THAN 3
FEET
NONE REQUIRED 3 FEET OR MORE
(26) Table R302.1(2) Exterior Walls-Dwellings with Fire Sprinklers is hereby deleted.
(27) Section R302.2 Townhouses, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R302.2 Townhouses. Each townhouse shall be considered a separate building and shall
be separated by two-hour fire-resistance rated wall assemblies. Effective August 1, 2014,
townhouses shall be provided with a fire-suppression system as per P2904.
Exception: Effective August 1, 2014, a common one-hour fire-resistance-rated wall
assembly tested in accordance with ASTME 119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses
if such walls do not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts or vents in the
cavity of the common wall. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and
shall extend to and be tight against exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing.
Electrical installations shall be installed in accordance with Chapters 34 through 43.
Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with Section R302.4.”
(28) Section R302.2.1 Continuity is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R302.2.1 Continuity. The fire-resistance-rated adjoining wall or assembly separating
townhouses along property lines shall be continuous from the foundation to the underside
of the roof sheathing, deck or slab. The fire-resistance rating shall extend the full length
of the wall or assembly, including wall extensions through and separating attached
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 11 -
enclosed accessory structures. The fire-resistance-rated adjoining wall shall extend to the
outer edge of horizontal projecting elements such as balconies, roof overhangs, canopies,
marquees and similar projections”
(29) Section R302.3 Two-family dwellings is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R302.3 Two-family dwellings. Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be
separated from each other by wall and/or floor assemblies having not less than a two-hour
fire-resistance rating or by two walls, each of one-hour fire-resistance rating when tested
in accordance with ASTME 119 or UL 263. Fire-resistance-rated floor-ceiling and wall
assemblies shall extend to and be tight against the exterior wall, and wall assemblies shall
extend from the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing. Effective August 1,
2014, two-family dwellings shall be provided with a fire-suppression system as per
P2904.
Exceptions:
1. A fire-resistance rating of one-half hour shall be permitted in buildings equipped
throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13.
2. Wall assemblies in buildings equipped with a fire suppressions system complying with
NFPA 13, 13R or IRC P2904, need not extend through attic spaces when the ceiling is
protected by not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board and an attic draft
stop constructed as specified in Section R302.12.1 is provided above and along the wall
assembly separating the dwellings. The structural framing supporting the ceiling shall
also be protected by not less than 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) gypsum board or equivalent.
3. Walls and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units shall have a fire-resistance
rating of one-hour in buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R.”
(30) Section R308.4.5 Glazing and wet surfaces is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R308.4.5 Glazing and wet surfaces. Glazing in walls, enclosures or fences containing
or facing hot tubs, spas, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs, showers and indoor
or outdoor swimming pools where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60
inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface shall be
considered a hazardous location. This shall apply to single glazing and all panes in
multiple glazing.
Exception: Glazing that is more than 48 inches (1219 mm), measured horizontally and in
a straight line, from the water’s edge of a bathtub, hot tub, spa, whirlpool, or swimming
pool.”
(31) Section R308.4.7 Glazing adjacent to the bottom stair landing is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 12 -
“R308.4.7 Glazing adjacent to stair landings. Glazing adjacent to the stair landings
where the glazing is less than 36 inches (914 mm) above the landing and within 60 inches
(1524 mm) horizontally of the top or bottom tread shall be considered a hazardous
location.
Exception: The glazing is protected by a guard complying with Section R312 and the
plane of the glass is more than 18 inches (457 mm) from the guard.”
(32) Section R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements, habitable attics and every
sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening.
Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency egress and rescue
openings shall be required in each sleeping room. Where emergency escape and rescue
openings are provided they shall have a sill height of not more than 44 inches (1118 mm)
measured from the finished floor to the bottom of the clear opening. Emergency escape
and rescue window openings that are located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the
finished grade or surface directly below the window shall have a sill height of not less
than 24 inches (609 mm) measured from the finished interior side floor. Where a door
opening having a threshold below the adjacent ground elevation serves as an emergency
escape and rescue opening and is provided with a bulkhead enclosure, the bulkhead
enclosure shall comply with Section R310.3. The net clear opening dimensions required
by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and
rescue opening from the inside. Emergency escape and rescue openings with a finished
sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall be provided with a window well in
accordance with Section R310.2. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open
directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
Exception: Basements used only to house mechanical equipment and not exceeding total
floor area of 200 square feet (18.58 m2).”
(33) Section R310.2 Window Wells is amended by adding a new exception #2 to read as
follows:
“2. With the window in the full open position, the bottom window well step may
encroach a maximum of 12 inches (304 mm) into the minimum horizontal projection,
provided the well meets the following criteria:
(a) The bottom of the well is not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm), centered
horizontally on the openable portion of the emergency escape and rescue door or
window; and
(b) An unobstructed clear horizontal projection of 36 inches (914 mm) is
maintained at the centerline of the openable portion of the emergency escape and
rescue door or window; and
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 13 -
(c) Window well steps do not exceed a rise of 16 inches maximum and the
step run is at least 4 inches.”
(34) Section R310.2.2 Drainage is amended to read as follows and by adding a new exception
#2 to read as follows:
“R310.2.2 Drainage. Window wells shall be designed for proper drainage by connecting
to the building’s foundation drainage system required by Section R405.1 or by an
approved alternative method. Inlet to the drainage system shall be a minimum of 4 inches
(101 mm) below the window sill. Where no drains are required, the window well surface
shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101 mm) below the window sill.
Exception:
1. A drainage system for window wells is not required when the foundation is on
well-drained soil or sand-gravel mixture soils as determined by the foundation engineer
of record.
2. A drainage system is not required for new window wells on additions or to
existing dwellings.”
(35) Section R311.7.1 Stairways Width Exception is amended to read as follows:
“Exception: The width of spiral stairways installed within individual dwelling units shall
be in accordance with Section R311.7.9.1.”
(36) Section R311.7.5.1 Risers is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R311.7.5.1 Risers. The maximum riser height shall be 7 3/4 inches (196 mm). The
minimum riser height shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm). The riser shall be
measured vertically between leading edges of the adjacent treads. The greatest riser
height within any flight of stairs shall not exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch (9.5
mm). Risers shall be vertical or sloped from the underside of the nosing of the tread
above at an angle not more than 30 degrees (0.51 rad) from the vertical. Open risers are
permitted provided that the opening between treads does not permit the passage of a 4-
inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere.
Exception: The opening between adjacent treads is not limited on stairs with a total rise
of 30 inches (762 mm) or less.”
(37) Section R312.1.1 Where required is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R312.1.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces,
including stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm)
measured vertically to the floor or grade below. Insect screening shall not be considered
as a guard.”
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 14 -
(38) Section R312.1.1.1 Area well retaining walls, is amended by adding a new section to
read as follows:
“R312.1.1.1 Area well retaining walls. Where any area well wall, bulkhead enclosure
wall or similar retaining wall or barrier is located less than 36 inches (914 mm) from the
nearest intended walking surface, parking surface, or driveway and the surface elevation
difference between the higher and lower side of the well wall, bulkhead enclosure wall,
or retaining wall is greater than 36 inches, such wall shall be protected with guards or be
provided with an equivalent barrier.
Exceptions:
1. The access side of stairways need not be barricaded.
2. Area wells provided for emergency escape and rescue windows may be protected
with approved grates or covers that comply with Section R310.4.
3. Covers and grates may be used over stairways and other openings used
exclusively for service access or for admitting light or ventilation.
4. Area well walls, bulkhead enclosure walls, or retaining walls adjacent to a
building that are located 24 inches (610 mm) or less measured perpendicular from
the building are excepted.
5. Locations are excepted where the slope of the embankment or the side of the
enclosure or the opening adjacent to such walls does not exceed 2 horizontal to 1
vertical.”
(39) Section R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. Effective August 1, 2014, an
automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in townhouses.
Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required when
additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic
residential fire sprinkler system installed.”
(40) Section R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems. Effective August 1,
2014, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-
family dwellings.
Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for
additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an
automatic residential sprinkler system.”
(41) Section R314.3.1 Alterations, repairs and additions, is hereby amended by deleting
exception #2.
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 15 -
(42) Section R322.1 General is amended to read as follows:
“R322.1 General. Buildings and structures constructed in whole or in part in flood
hazard areas (including A or V Zones) as established in Table R301.2(1) shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions contained in this section. In
addition to complying with the provisions of this section, buildings and structures
constructed in flood hazard areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the provisions of the Code of the City, Chapter 10, Flood Prevention and Protection. In
riverine flood hazard areas where design flood elevations are specified but floodways
have not been designated, the applicant shall demonstrate that the cumulative effect of the
proposed buildings and structures on design flood elevations, including fill, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the
design flood elevation more than one foot at any point within the City.”
(43) Section R324 Resource Efficiency a new section is hereby added to read as follows:
“R324 Resource Efficiency
R324.1 Construction waste management. For new buildings, and additions over 2,500
square feet or remodels over 2,500 square feet a construction waste management plan
acceptable to the building official that includes recycling of concrete and masonry, wood,
metals and cardboard, is required at the time of application for a building permit. The
construction waste management plan shall be implemented and conspicuously posted on
the construction site. Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through receipts and
signed affidavits. Substantive changes to the plan shall be subject to prior approval by the
building official.
R324.1.1 Building demolitions. Buildings or portions of buildings which are removed
shall be processed in such a way as to safely remove all asbestos and lead paint
contaminants. Where possible, all remaining materials, such as doors, windows, cabinets,
and fixtures, concrete and masonry, wood, metals, and cardboard shall be recycled.
Compliance shall be certified by the hauler through receipts and signed affidavits.
R324.2 Certified tropical hardwood. All tropical hardwoods used in new construction,
additions and alterations requiring a building permit, shall be certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council or other approved agency. Certification demonstrating compliance
shall be required with delivery of such materials and shall be available for inspection.”
(44) Section R325 Indoor Environmental Quality a new section is hereby added to read as
follows:
“R325 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
R325.1 Low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials. Construction materials,
floor coverings and site applied finishes, including sealants and adhesives, resilient
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 16 -
flooring, carpeting and pad, site-applied paints, stains and varnishes, structural wood
panels, hardwood veneer plywood, particle board and fiber board building products, and
insulation shall meet specified volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limits in
accordance with California Department of Public Health (CDPH) 01350;
GREENGUARD Environmental Institute GGPS.001 standard for building materials and
finishes; and Green Seal® standards. Documentation demonstrating compliance be
required with delivery of such materials and shall be available for inspection.”
Exception: For alterations to existing buildings, carpeting and pad, structural wood
panels, hardwood, veneer plywood, particle board and fiber board building products and
insulation are not subject to this requirement.”
(45) Section R326 Outdoor Environmental Quality a new section is hereby added to read as
follows:
“R326 Outdoor Environmental Quality (OEQ)
R326.1 Exterior lighting. All exterior lighting fixtures associated with new buildings
shall have the “Fixture Seal of Approval” from the International Dark-Sky Association
(IDA) or meet equivalent criteria approved by the building official. Lighting placement
shall conform to IDA Model Lighting Ordinance for Lighting Zone LZ-1. Light shall be
shielded such that the lamp itself or the lamp image is not directly visible outside the
property perimeter.”
(46) Section R327 Operations and Maintenance and Building Owner Education a new
section is hereby added to read as follows:
“R327 Operations and Maintenance and Building Owner Education
R327.1 Operations and maintenance. In new buildings, operation and maintenance
information addressing all installed systems shall be provided for the building owner
prior to final approval.”
(47) Section R401.1 Application is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R401.1 Application. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design and
construction of the foundation and foundation spaces for all buildings. In addition to the
provisions of this chapter, the design and construction of foundations in areas prone to
flooding as established by Table R301.2(1) shall meet the provisions of Section R322.
All foundations shall be designed by a qualified professional licensed in the State of
Colorado. Such designs shall be performed in accordance with accepted and approved
engineering practices, including considerations for soil load-bearing capacities, surface
and subsurface water conditions, adequate foundation and floor drainage, adequate
ventilation of enclosed interior foundation spaces, and foundation waterproofing and
damp-proofing. Final engineer’s reports, indicating his/her acceptance of the above
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 17 -
requirements, shall be submitted to the building official prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy.
Exception: Foundations for accessory buildings and minor additions that are not located
on expansive, compressible, or shifting soils, soils of unknown characteristics, or for
other valid reasons as determined by the building official, need not be designed by a
licensed professional.
Wood foundations in Seismic Design Category D0, D1 or D2 shall be designed in
accordance with accepted engineering practice.
Exception: The provisions of this chapter shall be permitted to be used for wood
foundations only in the following situations:
1. In buildings that have no more than two floors and a roof.
2. When interior basement and foundation walls are constructed at intervals not
exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm).”
(48) Section, R401.5 Placement of Backfill is hereby added to read as follows:
“R401.5 Placement of Backfill. The excavation outside the foundation, including utility
trenches and excavation ramp, shall be backfilled with soil that is substantially free of
organic material, construction debris and cobbles, boulders, and solid soil masses larger
than 6 inches (152 mm) diameter; or of frozen soil. The backfill shall be placed in lifts
and compacted as set forth in the engineering documents. The backfill shall be placed in a
manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or damp-proofing
material. Excavation ramps shall be backfilled in such a manner that the ramp does not
become a conduit for surface water to flow toward the foundation. Where excavations
include more than one house, a specially engineered drainage system may be required by
the building official.”
(49) Section R403.1.4.1Frost Protection Exceptions is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Exceptions:
1. Protection of freestanding unconditioned accessory structures with an area of 600
square feet (56 m2) or less, of light-frame construction, with an eave height of 10
feet (3048 mm) or less shall not be required.
2. Protection of freestanding unconditioned accessory structures with an area of 400
square feet (37 m2) or less, of other than light-frame construction, with an eave
height of 10 feet (3048 mm) or less shall not be required.
3. Decks not supported by a dwelling need not be provided with footings that extend
below the frost line.”
(50) Section R405.1 Concrete or masonry foundations, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 18 -
“R405.1 Concrete or masonry foundations. Drains consisting of piping conforming
with ASTM Designation D2729-89 shall be provided adjacent to the lowest concrete or
masonry foundations that retain earth and enclose spaces that are partially or entirely
located below grade. Unless perimeter drains are designed to daylight, they shall
terminate in sump pits with an electrical power source permanently installed within 36
inches (914 mm) of the sump opening. Piping for sump pumps shall discharge at least 60
inches (1524 mm) away from foundations or as otherwise approved by the building
official. Drains shall be installed in bedding materials that are of such size and installed
in such manner to allow ground water to seep into the perimeter drain. Filter fabric or
other measures to restrict the passage of fines shall be used to further protect the
perimeter drain from blockage.
Exception: A drainage system is not required when determined by the engineer of record
that the foundation is installed on well-drained ground or sand gravel mixture soils
according to the Unified Soil Classification System, Group I Soils, as detailed in Table
R405.1.”
(51) Section R405.3 Landscape irrigation, is added to read as follows:
“R405.3 Landscape irrigation. Landscape irrigation systems shall be installed such
that the ground surface within 60 inches (1524 mm), measured perpendicular from the
foundation, is not irrigated.”
(52) Section R408.1Ventilation is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“R408.1 Crawl space vapor retarder. All exposed earth in a crawl space shall be
covered with a continuous Class I vapor retarder. Joints of the vapor retarder shall
overlap by 6 inches (152 mm) and shall be sealed or taped. The edges of the vapor
retarder shall extend at least 6 inches (152 mm) up the perimeter stem wall and any
footing pads on grade, and be permanently attached and sealed to the stem wall or footing
pads.”
(53) Section R408.2 Openings for under-floor ventilation is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
“R408.2 Crawl space. Crawl spaces shall be designed and constructed to be inside the
building thermal envelope, in accordance with the insulation and air sealing requirements
for crawl space walls and rim joists of Section N1102 of this code. Crawl spaces shall
not be vented to the exterior. They shall be conditioned using one of the following
approaches:
1. Continuously operated mechanical exhaust ventilation at a rate equal to 1 cubic
foot per minute (0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7m2) of crawl space floor area,
including an air pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer grille);
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 19 -
2. Conditioned air supply sized to deliver at a rate equal to 1 cubic foot per minute
(0.47 L/s) for each 50 square feet (4.7 m2) of under-floor area, including a return air
pathway to the common area (such as a duct or transfer grille);
3. Plenum in existing structures complying with Section M1601.5, if under-floor
space is used as a plenum.
Exception: Crawl spaces shall be permitted to be designed and constructed as
unconditioned spaces, outside the building thermal envelope, provided the following
requirements are met:
1. The floor above the crawl space is part of the building thermal envelope. It shall
meet the insulation requirements of Table N1102.1.1 of this code and shall be air-
sealed in accordance with Section N1102.4.1 of this code.
2. Ventilation openings shall be placed through foundation walls or exterior walls.
The minimum net area of ventilation openings shall not be less than 1 square foot
(0.0929 m2) for each 1,500 square feet (140 m2) of under-floor space area. One
such ventilating opening shall be within 3 feet (914 mm) of each corner of the
building.
3. Ventilation openings shall be covered for their height and width with any of the
following materials, provided that the least dimension of the covering shall not
exceed 1/4 inch (6.4 mm):
a. Perforated sheet metal plates not less than 0.070 inch (1.8 mm) thick.
b. Expanded sheet metal plates not less than 0.047 inch (1.2 mm) thick.
c. Cast-iron grill or grating.
d. Extruded load-bearing brick vents.
e. Hardware cloth of 0.035 inch (0.89 mm) wire or heavier.
f. Corrosion-resistant wire mesh, with the least dimension being 1/8 inch
(3.2 mm) thick.
4. The installation of operable louvers shall not be prohibited.”
(54) Section R408.2.1 Ventilated under-floor spaces, is hereby added to read as follows:
“R408.2.1 Ventilated under-floor spaces. Floor systems above ventilated under-floor
spaces, or floors open to the exterior with no enclosed space below shall be insulated to
R-30 in accordance with the adopted International Energy Conservation Code Table
402.1.1. Floor system shall be sealed to prevent heat loss and air infiltration.”
(55) Section R408.3 Unvented crawl space, Item 3 is hereby added to read as follows:
“3. The perimeter walls enclosing unvented crawl spaces shall be thermally insulated to
R-15 continuous insulation or R-19 batt insulation in accordance with Table N1102.1.1.”
(56) Section R408.3.1 Spaces under below-grade floors, is hereby added to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 20 -
“R408.3.1 Spaces under below-grade floors. Mechanical ventilation systems for spaces
under below-grade floors shall be installed as designed by a professional engineer.”
(57) Section, R408.6 Finished grade is hereby amended by adding a sentence at the end to
read as follows:
“In areas where expansive or collapsible soils are known to exist, under floor clearances
shall be provided in accordance with the professional designed foundation system.”
(58) Section R703.8.1Fenestration Installation is hereby added to read as follows:
“R703.8.1 Fenestration installation. For all new construction, all fenestration
installations shall be in accordance with American Architectural Manufacturers
Association (AAMA) Standards/ Specifications for Windows, Doors and Skylights and
shall be supervised or inspected by an individual certified as an Installation Master or by
one having attended a training by the manufacturer of the specific window product being
installed. Fenestration perimeter flashing shall be installed per Installation Masters
Chapter 16 Method A or A1, including either rigid or flexible sill pan flashing.”
(59) Section R703.11 Vinyl siding is hereby amended in its entirety to read as:
“R703.11 Vinyl siding shall not be installed on new buildings within the limits of the
City of Fort Collins.”
(60) Section R703.11.3 Polypropylene siding is hereby added to read as:
“R703.11.3 Polypropylene siding shall not be installed on new buildings within the
limits of the City of Fort Collins.”
(61) Section R801.3 Roof Drainage is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R801.3 Roof drainage. All dwellings shall have a controlled method of water disposal
from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5
feet (1524 mm) from foundation walls or to an approved drainage system.”
(62) Section R902.1 Roofing Covering Materials is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R902.1 Roofing covering materials. Except as otherwise allowed, roofs shall be
covered with materials listed as Class A and with materials as set forth in Sections R904
and R905. Classes A, B and C roofing required to be listed by this section shall be tested
in accordance with UL 790 or ASTM E 108. Roof assemblies with coverings of brick,
masonry, slate, clay or concrete roof tile, exposed concrete roof deck, ferrous or copper
shingles or sheets, and metal sheets and shingles, shall be considered Class A roof
coverings.
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 21 -
Exception: Any Class B or Class C roof covering may be applied on any new
construction that is added to an existing building, provided the roof extremities of such
existing building and new construction are located a minimum distance of 5 feet (1.524
m) from the nearest adjacent property line and are a minimum distance of 10 feet (3.048
m) from another building.”
(63) Section R903.2.2 Crickets and saddles is hereby amended by adding exception number 2
to read as follows:
“R903.2.2 Crickets and saddles. A cricket or saddle shall be installed on the ridge side
of any chimney or penetration more than 30 inches (762 mm) wide as measured
perpendicular to the slope. Cricket or saddle coverings shall be sheet metal or of the same
material as the roof covering.
Exceptions:
1. Unit skylights installed in accordance with Section R308.6 and flashed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions shall be permitted to be installed
without a cricket or saddle.
2. Re-roofing per section R907.”
(64) Section R905.1.1 Roof underlayment is hereby added to read as follows:
“R905.1.1 Roof underlayment. Ice and water shield shall be installed at all roof eaves
starting at the drip edge and extending up slope to a point at least 2 feet beyond the
interior edge of the exterior wall.
Exception: Re-roofing where the existing roof covering has not been removed.”
(64) Section R907.1 General is hereby amended to read as follows:
“R907.1 General. Materials and methods of application used for recovering or replacing
an existing roof covering shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 9. No portion of
an existing nonrated roof covering may be permanently replaced or covered with more
than one square of nonrated roof covering.
Exceptions:
1. Reroofing shall not be required to meet the minimum design slope requirement of
one-fourth vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent slope) in Section R905 for
roofs that provide positive roof drainage.
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 22 -
2. Any existing roof covering system may be replaced with a roof covering of the
same materials and classification, provided the replacement roof covering has a
minimum rating of Class C.”
(65) Section R907.1.1 Roof underlayment is hereby added to read as follows:
“R907.1.1 Roof underlayment. Ice and water shield shall be installed at all roof eaves
starting at the drip edge and extending up slope to a point at least 2 feet beyond the
interior edge of the exterior wall.
Exception: Re-roofing where the existing roof covering has not been removed.”
(66) Section R1004.1 General is hereby amended by adding new sentence at the end to read
as follows:
“Solid fuel fireplaces, fireplace stoves and solid-fuel-type room heaters shall also comply
with Section 5-110 of the City Code and shall be provided with a spark arrestor.”
(67) Section R1004.4 Unvented Gas log Heaters is amended by deleting in its entirety.
(68) Section N1101.1.1 Thermal design parameters is hereby added to read as follows:
“N1101.1.1 Thermal design parameters. The following thermal design parameters in
Table N1101.1 shall be used for calculations required under this chapter.
TABLE N1101.1
THERMAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA
Winter Outdoor, Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 6
Winter Indoor, Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 72
Summer, Outdoor Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 90
Summer, Indoor Design Dry-bulb (
o
F) = 75
Summer, Outdoor Design Wet-bulb (
o
F) = 62
Summer, Indoor Design Wet-bulb (
o
F) = 62
Degree Days heating = 6368
Degree days cooling = 479
For SI: C = [( F)-32]/1.8.
Note: based on the 2013 Colorado Climate Center analysis.”
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 23 -
(69) Section N1101.4 (R101.4.5) Change in space conditioning, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“N1101.4 (R101.4.5) Space conditioning. Any non-conditioned space that is altered to
become conditioned space shall be required to be brought into full compliance with this
chapter. Habitable Spaces shall be conditioned as required by this code.”
(70) Section N1101.8 (R103.2) Information on construction documents, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“N1101.8 (R103.2) Information on construction documents. Construction documents
for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall envelope in sufficient detail to determine
compliance with this code. When applicable as determined by the building official,
construction documents submitted as part of the building permit application shall provide
details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including flashing, intersections of
dissimilar materials, corners, end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves, or
parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane, and details around openings.
The construction documents shall include manufacturing installation instructions that
provide supporting documentation that the proposed penetration and opening details
described in the construction documents maintain the weather resistance of the exterior
wall envelope. The supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior wall
system which was tested, where applicable, as well as the test procedure used.
Construction documents shall be drawn to scale upon suitable material. Electronic media
documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official.
Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and
extent of the work proposed, and shows in sufficient detail pertinent data and features of
the building, systems and equipment as herein governed. Details shall include, but are not
limited to, as applicable, insulation materials and their R-values; fenestration schedule
listing sizes, U-factors and SHGCs; area-weighted U-factor and SHGC calculations;
mechanical system design criteria; mechanical and service water heating system and
equipment types, sizes and efficiencies; economizer description; equipment and systems
controls; fan motor horsepower (hp) and controls; duct sealing, duct and pipe insulation
and location; lighting fixture schedule with wattage and control narrative; and air sealing
details.”
(71) Table N1102.1.1 Insulation and fenestration requirements by component is hereby
amended by the addition of electric heat requirements to read as follows:
“TABLE N1102.1.1
INSULATION AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT
a
HEATING
SYSTEM
TYPE
FENESTRATION
U-FACTORb
SKYLIGHTb
U-FACTOR
GLAZED
FENESTRATION
SHGC
CEILING
R-
VALUE
WOOD
FRAME
WALL
R-VALUE
f g
MASS
WALL
R-
VALUEg
FLOOR
- 24 -
ft
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8mm
a. R-values are minimums. U-factors and SHGC are maximums. R-19 batts compressed into a nominal 2x6 framing
cavity such that the R-value is reduced by R-1 or more shall be marked with the compressed batt R-value in addition to
the full thickness R-value.
b. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration.
c. “15/19” means R-15 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall or R-19 cavity insulation at
the interior of the foundation wall. “15/19” shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of
the foundation wall plus R-5 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall. “10/13” means R-
10 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the
foundation wall.
d. R-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs.
e. Insulation shall fill the framing cavity, R-19 minimum.
f. First value is cavity insulation, second is insulated sheathing or siding, so “20+5” means R-20 cavity insulation plus R-
5 insulated sheathing. If structural sheathing covers 25 percent or less of the exterior, insulating sheathing is not
required where structural sheathing is used. If structural sheathing covers more than 25 percent of the exterior,
structural sheathing shall be supplemented with insulated sheathing of at least R-2.
g. The second R-value applies when more than half the insulation is on the interior of the mass wall.
h. All rim joists and adjoining plates shall be air-sealed and insulated using spray foam insulation to R-15 minimum.
i. All rim joists and adjoining plates shall be air-sealed”
(72) Table N1102.1.3 Equivalent U-Factors is hereby amended by the addition of electric
heat requirements to read as follows:
“TABLE N1102.1.3
EQUIVALENT U-FACTORS
a
HEATING
SYSTEM
TYPE
FENESTRATION
U-FACTOR
SKYLIGHT
U-FACTOR
CEILING
R-
VALUE
FRAME
WALL
U-FACTOR
MASS
WALL
U-
FACTORb
FLOOR
U-
FACTOR
BASEMENT
WALL
U-FACTOR
CRAWL
SPACE
WALL
U-
FACTOR
Nonelectric
heat
0.32 0.55 0.026 0.057 0.082 0.033 0.059 0.055
Electric heat 0.30 0.55 0.026 0.048 0.060 0.033 0.050 0.055
a. Non-fenestration U-factors shall be obtained from measurement, calculation or an approved source.
b. When more than half the insulation is on the interior, the mass wall U-factor shall be the same as the frame wall U-
- 25 -
(74) Section N1102.2.1 Ceilings with attic spaces is hereby amended to read as follows:
“N1102.2.1 (R402.2.1) Ceilings with attic spaces.
1. When Section N1102.1.1 would require R-38 in the ceiling, R-30 shall be deemed
to satisfy the requirement for R-38 wherever the full height of uncompressed R-30
insulation extends over the wall top plate at the eaves. Similarly, R- 38 shall be deemed
to satisfy the requirement for R-49 wherever the full height of uncompressed R-38
insulation extends over the wall top plate at the eaves. This reduction shall not apply to
the U-factor alternative approach in Section N1102.1.3 and the total UA alternative in
Section N1102.1.4.
2. (Mandatory) At the eaves, the insulation extending over the exterior wall top plate
shall be R-19 minimum.”
(75) Section N1102.2.3 Eave baffles is hereby amended to read as follows:
“N1102.2.3 (R402.2.3) Eave baffles and blocks (Mandatory). For air permeable
insulations in vented attics with ventilation from open or box soffits, a baffle shall be
installed to provide ventilation from the soffit to the attic adjacent to each soffit or eave
vent. In the case of continuous soffit vents, enough baffles shall be installed to maintain
the required attic ventilation from the soffit. The ventilation baffle shall extend over the
top of the attic insulation between rafters or trusses, maintaining a minimum 1” clear
opening below the roof deck and sufficient space for the minimum depth of attic
insulation. The baffle shall be permitted to be any solid material. All other spaces
between rafters or trusses shall be blocked at the outside edge of the exterior wall top
plate with air impermeable materials so as to contain the attic insulation.”
(76) Section N1102.2.7.1 Rim insulation requirements is hereby added to read as follows:
“N1102.2.7.1 (R402.2.7.1) Rim insulation requirements All rim plates and rim joist
which are part of the thermal envelope shall be air-sealed. All rim plates and rim joist
which are part of the thermal envelope shall be insulated using spray foam materials to R-
15 minimum when the basement walls are insulated to 10/13 in accordance with Table
N1102.1.1.”
(77) Section N1102.4.1.2 Testing is hereby amended to read as follows:
“N1102.4.1.2 (R402.4.1.2) Testing. The building or individual dwelling units shall be
tested and verified as having an air leakage rate of not exceeding 3 air changes per hour.
Testing shall be conducted with a blower door at a pressure of 0.2 inches w.g. (50
Pascals) in accordance with Section 802 of the RESNET Mortgage Industry National
Home Energy Rating Standards or City of Fort Collins Building Code Protocol for New
Multifamily Building Air Tightness Testing in duplex or townhomes. Where required by
the building official, testing shall be conducted by an approved third party. A written
report of the results of the test shall be signed by the party conducting the test and
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 26 -
provided to the building official. Isolation of attached garages from adjoining conditioned
areas shall be verified in accordance with City protocols.
Testing shall occur after rough-in and after installation of penetrations of the building
thermal envelope, including but not limited to penetrations for utilities, plumbing,
electrical, ventilation and combustion appliances.
General requirements during testing:
1. Exterior windows and doors, fireplace and stove doors shall be closed, but not
sealed, beyond the intended weather-stripping or other infiltration control
measures;
2. Dampers including exhaust, intake, makeup air, backdraft and flue dampers shall
be closed, but not sealed beyond intended infiltration control measures;
3. Interior doors, if installed at the time of the test, shall be open;
4. Exterior doors for continuous ventilation systems and heat recovery ventilators
shall be closed and sealed;
5. Heating and cooling systems, if installed at the time of the test, shall be turned
off; and
6. Supply and return registers, if installed at the time of the test, shall be fully open.
7. Combustion air inlets shall not be closed or otherwise obstructed.
8. Garage doors to the exterior shall be closed.
In additions or alterations to existing buildings, air sealing compliance shall be
considered acceptable when the items listed in Table N1102.4.1.1, applicable to the
method of construction, are field-verified.”
(78) Section N1102.5 Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC (Mandatory) is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“N1102.5 (R402.5) Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC. For new construction
and additions that require a building permit, the area-weighted average maximum
fenestration U-factor permitted using trade-offs from Section N1102.1.4 or N1105 shall
be 0.40 for vertical fenestration, and 0.75 for skylights.”
(79) Section N1103.2.1 (R403.2.1) Insulation is hereby amended to read as follows:
“N1103.2.1 (R403.2.1) Insulation (Mandatory). Supply ducts in attics shall be insulated
to a minimum of R-8. All other ducts shall be insulated to a minimum of R-6.”
Exception: Ducts or portions thereof located completely inside the building thermal
envelope.
(80) Section N1104.1 (R404.1) Lighting equipment is hereby amended to read as:
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 27 -
“N1104.1 (R404.1) Lighting equipment (Mandatory). A minimum of 75 percent of the
lamps in permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or a
minimum of 50 percent of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only
LED lamps.”
(81) Section N1105 Simulated Performance Alternative (Performance) is hereby amended
by the addition of exception to read as follows:
“N1105.1 (R405.1) Scope. This section establishes criteria for compliance using
simulated energy performance analysis. Such analysis shall include heating, cooling, and
service water heating energy only.
Exception: In addition to all mandatory sections, new buildings, additions, or alterations
where the primary heat source is electrical shall comply with prescriptive portions of the
code.”
(82) Section M1307.3 Elevation of ignition source is amended to read as follows:
“M1307.3 Elevation of ignition source. Electrical devices, equipment and appliances
having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the source of ignition is not less than
18 inches (457 mm) above the floor in garages. For the purpose of this section, rooms or
spaces that are not part of the living space of a dwelling unit and that communicate with a
private garage through openings shall be considered to be part of the garage.”
(83) Section M1309 Testing and verification is hereby added to read as follows:
“M1309 Testing and verification. Installed heating, cooling and ventilation systems
shall be performance-tested by an approved agency and adjusted to operate within design
specifications, in accordance with ANSI/ACCA QI 5-2010 HVAC Quality Installation
Specification. Documentation of results shall be submitted to the building official prior to
approval.”
(84) Section M1401.3 Sizing is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“M1401.3 Heating and cooling system design. The design of new heating and cooling
systems shall meet the requirements of this Section. Design documents shall be
submitted to the building official at the time of application for a building permit.
M1401.3.1 Equipment sizing. Heating and cooling equipment shall be sized in
accordance with ACCA Manual S, based on design building loads calculated in
accordance with ACCA Manual J, or other equivalent methodology approved by the
building official, using thermal design parameters in Table N1101.1 as amended. The
total equipment output capacity shall be between the following limits, as applicable for
the equipment type:
1. 95% and 115% of calculated system cooling load, for air conditioners and heat
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 28 -
pumps;
2. 95% and 125% of calculated system cooling load, for heat pumps with winter
heating dominated requirements;
3. 100% and 140% of calculated system heating load, for warm air systems,
unless dictated by the cooling equipment selection; and
4. 100% and 115% of calculated system heating load, for heating boilers.
Where no available equipment is within the applicable capacity limits, the next largest
nominal piece of equipment that is available may be used.
M1401.3.2 Room loads. Room-by-room design heating and cooling loads shall be
calculated.
M1401.3.3 Matched components. Air-conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) matched evaporators, condensing units and air handlers shall be required.”
(85) Section, M1414.1 General is hereby amended to read as follows:
“M1414.1 General. Fireplace stoves shall be listed, labeled and installed in accordance
with the terms of the listing. Fireplace stoves shall be tested in accordance with UL 737.
Wood burning appliances shall meet the latest emission standards as stated by the State of
Colorado and Federal Regulation 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA.”
(86) Section M1501.1 Outdoor discharge is hereby amended to read as follows:
“M1501.1 Outdoor discharge. The air removed by every mechanical exhaust system
shall be discharged to the outdoors such that the exhaust termination is at least 10 feet
(3048 mm) from intakes of other mechanical ventilating systems. Air shall not be
exhausted into an attic, soffit, ridge vent or crawl space.
Exception: Whole-house ventilation-type attic fans that discharge into the attic space of
dwelling units having private attics shall be permitted.”
(87) Section M1501.2 Indoor depressurization is hereby added to read as follows:
“M1501.2 Indoor depressurization. Ducted exhaust systems shall not induce or create a
negative pressure sufficient to cause back-drafting of naturally vented, open combustion-
chamber, fuel-burning appliances, or create negative pressure in excess of negative 3 Pa.
in the immediate proximity of combustion chambers of such appliances.”
(88) Section M1502.4.4.2 Manufacturer’s instructions, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
(89) Section M1503.4 Makeup air required is hereby amended to read as follows:
“M1503.4 Makeup air required. Exhaust hood systems rated at exhausting in excess of
400 cubic feet per minute (0.19 m3/s) shall be provided with makeup air at a rate
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 29 -
approximately equal to the exhaust air rate. Such makeup air systems shall be equipped
with a means of closure and shall be automatically controlled to start and operate
simultaneously with the exhaust system. Exhaust air rate required shall be calculated
based on the total BTU’s of the gas appliance beneath the hood at a ratio of 100 BTU’s to
1 CFM.”
(90) Section M1507.3 Whole-house mechanical ventilation system is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as:
“M1507.3 Whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation system. For new buildings, a
mechanical exhaust system, supply system, or combination thereof shall be installed for
each dwelling unit to provide whole-dwelling unit ventilation. Such system shall comply
with Sections M1507.3.1 through M1507.3.4.
M1507.3.1 Whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation rate. The whole-dwelling unit
mechanical ventilation system shall provide outdoor air at a continuous rate of not less
than that determined in accordance with Table M1507.3.3(1).
Exception: The whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation system is permitted to
operate intermittently where the system has controls that enable operation for not less
than 25-percent of each 4-hour segment and the ventilation rate prescribed in Table
M1507.3.3(1) is multiplied by the factor determined in accordance with Table
M1507.3.3(2).
M1507.3.2 System design. The design of the required whole-dwelling unit mechanical
ventilation system shall comply with the requirements of this Section. System design
documents shall be submitted to the building official at the time of application for a
building permit.
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 30 -
M1507.3.2.1 System type. The system shall consist of one or more supply or
exhaust fans, or a combination thereof, and associated ducts and controls.
Exhaust fans shall be permitted to be part of a mechanical exhaust system.
Outdoor air ducts connected to the return side of an air handler shall be
considered to provide supply ventilation.
M1507.3.2.2 Outdoor air intakes. Outdoor air intakes shall have automatic
dampers that close when the ventilation system is not operating.
M1507.3.2.3 Exhausts. Exhausts shall have gravity dampers that close when the
ventilation system is not operating.
M1507.3.2.4. Air circulation fan motors. Motors for air circulation fans used in
the ventilation system, rated at one-quarter horsepower or greater, shall meet at
least one of the following criteria:
1. Where the furnace serves as an air handler for the ventilation system, the
furnace shall be certified as an “Electrically Efficient Furnace” by the Air-
conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).
2. The blower motor shall be specified as a “Brushless DC” (BL or BLDC)
motor by the manufacturer.
3. The blower motor shall be specified as “Brushless Permanent Magnet”
(BPM) motor.
4. The blower motor shall be specified as “Electronically Commutated
Motor” (ECM)”.
5. The blower shall meet equivalent criteria acceptable to the building
official.
M1507.3.2.5. System controls. The mechanical ventilation system shall be
provided with readily accessible and labeled controls that enable occupant
override.
M1507.3.2.6. Sound ratings for fans. Whole-dwelling unit mechanical
ventilation fans shall be rated for sound at a maximum of 1.5 sones, in accordance
with the procedures of the Home Ventilating. Institute (HVI 915, Procedure for
Loudness Rating of Residential Fan Products).
Exception: Heating, ventilating and air conditioning air handlers and remote-
mounted fans need not meet sound requirements. To be considered for this
exception, a remote-mounted fan must be mounted outside the habitable spaces,
bathrooms, toilets and hallways, and there must be a least 4 ft (1 m) of ductwork
between the fan and the intake grille.
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 31 -
M1507.3.3 System installation. The installation of the whole-dwelling unit mechanical
ventilation system and equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the
manufacturers’ design requirements and installation instructions.
M1507.3.4 Performance verification. Performance of installed mechanical ventilation
systems shall be verified in accordance with Section M1309.”
(91) Section M1601.1 Duct design is hereby amended to read as follows:
“M1601.1 Duct design. Duct systems serving new heating, cooling and ventilation
equipment shall be designed and fabricated in accordance with the provisions of this
section and ACCA Manual D or other approved methods.”
(92) Section M1601.1.1 Above-ground duct systems Item 7. stud wall cavities is hereby
deleted in its entirety.
(93) Section, M1601.4.10 Construction debris and contamination is hereby added to read as
follows:
“M1601.4.10 Construction debris and contamination. Mechanical air-handling
systems and their related ducts shall be protected from the entrance of dirt, debris, and
dust during the construction and installation process. Prior to passing final inspection or
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, such systems shall be substantially free of
construction-related contaminants.”
(94) Section, M1602.1 Return air is hereby amended to read as:
“M1602.1 Return air. Return air shall be taken from inside the dwelling. Dilution of
return air with outdoor air shall be permitted. A return air path shall be provided in all
habitable rooms by means of ducts or transfer grills.”
(95) Section G2404.3 (301.3) Listed and labeled is hereby amended by deleting the last
sentence to read as follows:
“G2404.3 (301.3) Listed and labeled. Appliances regulated by this code shall be listed
and labeled for the application in which they are used unless otherwise approved in
accordance with Section R104.11.”
(96) Section G2406.2 (303.3) Prohibited locations is hereby amended by deleting exceptions
3. and 4.
(97) Section G2406.4 (303.5.1) Natural Draft Appliances locations, is hereby added to read
as follows:
“G2406.4 Natural Draft Appliances locations. For new buildings and new appliance
or new HVAC systems installed within additions, natural draft appliances shall not be
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 32 -
located within the building thermal envelope or be located in a space where the only
access to that space is from sleeping rooms, bathrooms, toilet rooms, storage closets, or
surgical rooms.
Exceptions:
1. Where natural draft appliances are located in an enclosed mechanical room and
sealed to air flow from adjoining conditioned area and the following conditions
are met:
a. The access to the mechanical room is through a self-closing, gasketed
door;
b. No other exhaust appliances are located within the mechanical room;
c. The mechanical room is provided with outside combustion air as specified
in this code;
d. The isolation of the mechanical room from adjoining conditioned areas is
verified with a differential-pressure test performed by approved licensed
contractors;
e. Such natural draft appliances pass a combustion safety test under worst-
case depressurization conditions in accordance with Building Performance
Institute (BPI) Technical Standards for the Heating Professional; and
f. Documentation of satisfactory testing results are submitted to the building
official prior to final approval.
2. Natural draft fireplaces that pass a combustion safety test, under worst-case
depressurization conditions, performed by approved licensed contractors and
conducted in accordance with the Building Performance Institute (BPI) Technical
Standards for the Heating Professional, prior to final approval.”
(98) Section G2407.11 (304.11) Combustion air ducts exception to Item, 1 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Exception: Where the installation of galvanized steel ducts is not practical due to
existing finish materials within dwelling units that are undergoing alteration or
reconstruction, unobstructed stud and joist spaces shall not be prohibited from conveying
combustion air, provided that not more than one required fireblock is removed.”
This section is hereby further amended by adding item, 9 to read as follows:
“9. All combustion air openings or ducts shall be readily identifiable with an approved
label or by other means, warning persons that obstruction of such openings or ducts may
cause fuel-burning equipment to release combustion products and dangerous levels of
carbon monoxide into the building.”
(99) Section G2408.1 (305.1) General is hereby amended by deleting the second paragraph
and replacing it to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 33 -
“Where natural draft appliances are replaced in existing buildings, all appliances with a
draft hood shall pass a combustion safety test under natural conditions, conducted by
approved licensed contractors in accordance with the Building Performance Institute
(BPI) Technical Standards for the Heating Professional. Such appliances shall also be
combustion safety tested under worst-case depressurization conditions, by approved
licensed contractors in accordance with Building Performance Institute (BPI) Technical
Standards for the Heating Professional. Should an appliance not pass such test, a
disclosure form reporting the test results shall be provided to the homeowner. A copy of
such disclosure form, signed by the homeowner, shall be submitted to the building
official prior to approval.”
(100) Section G2408.2 (305.3) Elevation of ignition source is amended to read as follows:
“G2408.2 (305.3) Elevation of ignition source. Electrical devices, equipment and
appliances having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the source of ignition is
not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor in hazardous locations and public
garages, private garages, repair garages, motor fuel-dispensing facilities and parking
garages. For the purpose of this section, rooms or spaces that are not part of the living
space of a dwelling unit and that communicate directly with a private garage through
openings shall be considered to be part of the private garage.”
(101) Section G2409.4.4 (308.4.5) Clearance from supply ducts is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“G2409.4.4 (308.4.5) Clearance from supply ducts. Supply air ducts connecting to
listed central heating furnaces where the bonnet temperature exceeds 150
o
F (68
o
C), shall
have the same minimum clearance to combustibles as required for the furnace supply
plenum for a distance of not less than 3 feet (914 mm) from the supply plenum.
Clearance is not required beyond the 3-foot (914 mm) distance.”
(102) Section G2415.9 (404.9) Above-ground piping outdoors is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“G2415.9 (404.9) Above-ground piping outdoors. All piping installed outdoors shall be
elevated not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above ground and where installed across roof
surfaces, shall be elevated not less than 31/2 inches (152 mm) above the roof surface.
Piping installed above ground, outdoors, and installed across the surface of roofs shall be
securely supported and located where it will be protected from physical damage. Where
passing through an outside wall, the piping shall also be protected against corrosion by
coating or wrapping with an inert material. Where piping is encased in a protective pipe
sleeve, the annular space between the piping and the sleeve shall be sealed.”
(103) Section G2415.12 (404.12) Minimum burial depth is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 34 -
“G2415.12 (404.12) Minimum burial depth. Underground piping systems shall be
installed a minimum depth of 18 inches (457 mm) below grade, except as provided for in
Section G2415.10.1.”
(104) Section G2415.12.1 (404.12.1) Individual outside appliance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“G2415.12.1 (404.12.1) Individual outside appliances. Individual lines to outside
lights, grills or other appliances shall be installed a minimum of 18 inches (457 mm)
below finished grade.
Exception: Approved materials installed a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) below
finished grade when covered with a concrete slab 3 1/2 inches (88.9 mm) in minimum
thickness.”
(105) Section G2415.15 (404.15) Outlet closure is hereby amended to read as follows:
“G2415.15 (404.15) Outlet closures. Gas outlets and fittings which allow for future gas
line expansion that do not connect to appliances shall be provided with an approved gas
shutoff valve with the end capped gas tight.
Exception:
1. Listed and labeled flush-mounted-type quick-disconnect devices and listed and
labeled gas convenience outlets shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s installation instructions.
2. Drip/dirt legs installed at the floor level at appliances.”
(106) Section G2416.1 (405.1) General is hereby amended to read as follows:
“G2416.1 (405.1) General. Changes in direction of rigid metallic pipe specified in
G2414.4 shall be made only by the use of fittings and factory bends.”
(107) Section G2416.2 (405.2) Metallic pipe is hereby deleted in its entirety.
(108) Section G2417.4.1 (406.4.1) Test pressure is hereby amended to read as follows:
“G2417.4.1 (406.4.1) Test pressure. The test pressure to be used shall be not less than
one and one-half times the proposed maximum working pressure, but not less than 10
psig (67 kPa gauge) irrespective of design pressure. Where the test pressure exceeds 125
psig (862 kPa gauge), the test pressure shall not exceed a value that produces a hoop
stress in the piping greater than 50 percent of the specified minimum yield strength of the
pipe.”
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 35 -
(109) Section G2420.5.2 (409.5.2) Vented decorative appliances and room heaters is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“G2420.5.2 (409.5.2) Vented decorative appliances and room heaters. Shutoff valves
for vented decorative appliances, room heaters and decorative appliances for installation
in vented fireplaces shall be permitted to be installed in an area remote from the
appliances where such valves are provided with ready access. Such valves shall be
permanently identified and shall serve no other appliance. Remote valves shall be
operable on the same floor as the appliance served and within 12 feet (3.658 m) of the
appliance as measured along the floor line. The piping from the shutoff valve to within 6
feet (1829 mm) of the appliance shall be designed, sized and installed in accordance with
Sections G2412 through G2419.”
(110) Section G2421.3 (410.3) Venting of regulators is hereby amended to read as follows:
“G2421.3 (410.3) Venting of regulators. Pressure regulators that require a vent shall be
vented directly to the outdoors. The vent shall be designed to prevent the entry of insects,
water, or foreign objects. Vents shall not terminate within 3 feet (0.916 m) of openings
into the building.
Exception: A vent to the outdoors is not required for regulators equipped with and
labeled for utilization with an approved vent-limiting device installed in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions.”
(111) Section G2425.8 (501.8) Appliances not required to be vented is hereby amended by
deleting item 7.
(112) Section G2427.5.5.1 (503.5.6.1) Chimney lining is hereby amended by deleting the
exception:
“G2427.5.5.1 (503.5.6.1) Chimney lining. Chimneys shall be lined in accordance with
NFPA 211.”
(113) Section G2427.6.4 (503.6.5) Minimum height is hereby amended by the addition of the
last sentence to read as follows:
“G2427.6.4 (503.6.5) Minimum height. A Type B or L gas vent shall terminate at least 5
feet (1524 mm) in vertical height above the highest connected appliance draft hood or
flue collar. A Type B-W gas vent shall terminate at least 12 feet (3658 mm) in vertical
height above the bottom of the wall furnace. All gas vents shall terminate a minimum of
22 inches (559 mm) above the surface or grade directly below.”
(114) Section G2439.3 (614.4) Exhaust installation is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 36 -
“G2439.3 (614.4) Exhaust installation. Dryer exhaust ducts for clothes dryers shall
terminate on the outside of the building and shall be equipped with a backdraft damper.
Dryer exhaust duct terminations shall not be located within 36 inches (914 mm) of
exterior openings into conditioned spaces, crawl spaces and attics. Screens shall not be
installed at the duct termination. Ducts shall not be connected or installed with sheet
metal screws or other fasteners that will obstruct the flow. Clothes dryer exhaust ducts
shall not be connected to a vent connector, vent or chimney. Clothes dryer exhaust ducts
shall not extend into or through ducts or plenums.”
(115) Section G2439.5.5.2 (614.6.5.2) Manufacturer’s instructions, is hereby deleted in its
entirety.
(116) Section G2445 (621), Unvented Room Heaters, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
(117) Section G2447.6 (623.8) Kitchens with gas cooking is hereby added to read as follows:
“G2447.6 Kitchens with gas cooking. Residential kitchens with gas cooking appliances
shall be supplied with an exhaust system vented to the outside. Ducts serving kitchen
exhaust systems shall not terminate in an attic or crawl space or areas inside the building
and shall not induce or create a negative pressure in excess of negative 3 Pa or adversely
affect gravity-vented appliances.”
(118) Section G2451.3 (630.3) Combustion and ventilation air is hereby added to read as
follows:
“G2451.3 (630.3) Combustion and ventilation air. Where infrared heaters are installed,
natural or mechanical means shall provide outdoor ventilation air at a rate of not less than
4 cfm per 1,000 Btu/h (0.38 m3/min/kW) of the aggregate input rating of all such heaters
installed in the space. Exhaust openings for removing flue products shall be above the
level of the heaters.”
(119) Section G2454 (636) Outdoor Decorative Appliances is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“G2454.1 (636) General. Permanently fixed-in-place outdoor decorative appliances shall
be tested in accordance with ANSI Z21.97 and shall be provided with a flame safeguard
device and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Appliances
shall not be located beneath or within 10 feet (3048 mm) of combustible construction.”
(120) Section P2503.5.1 Rough Plumbing is hereby amended to read as follows:
“P2503.5.1 Rough plumbing. DWV systems shall be tested on completion of the rough
piping installation by water or by air with no evidence of leakage. Either test shall be
applied to the drainage system in its entirety or in sections after rough piping has been
installed, as follows:
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 37 -
1. Water test. Each section shall be filled with water to a point not less than 10 feet
(3048 mm) above the highest fitting connection in that section, or to the highest
point in the completed system. Water shall be held in the section under test for a
period of 15 minutes. The system shall prove leak free by visual inspection.
2. Air test. The portion under test shall be maintained at a gauge pressure of 5
pounds per square inch (psi) (34 kPa) or 10 inches of mercury column (34 kPa).
This pressure shall be held without introduction of additional air for a period of 15
minutes.”
(121) Section P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“P2903.2 Maximum flow and water consumption. The maximum water consumption
flow rates and quantities for all plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings shall be in
accordance with Table P2903.2 and such fixtures shall be Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) WaterSense® labeled fixtures or such fixtures and fittings that provide the
equivalent maximum flow rates.”
(122) Table P2903.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Table P2903.2 Maximum Flow Rates and Consumption For Plumbing Fixtures and
Fixture Fittings
b
PLUMBING FIXTURE
OR FIXTURE FITTING
MAXIMUM FLOW RATES
Lavatory faucet
1.5 gpm at 60 psi
Shower heada
2.0 gpm at 80 psi
Sink faucet
1.8 gpm at 60 psi
Water closet
1.28 gallons per flushing cycle, with minimum MaP threshold of 350 grams
For SI: 1 gallon per minute (gpm) = 3.785 L/m.
1 pound per square inch (psi) = 6.895 kPa
2 A handheld shower spray is also a shower head
3 Consumption tolerances shall be determined from referenced standards.”
(123) Chapter 44 Referenced Standards is hereby amended by adding the following additional
referenced standards in alphabetical sequence:
Add the following referenced title standard to ACCA;
ANSI/ACCA QI 5-2007 HVAC Quality Installation Specification.
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section M1309 Performance verification
Installation Masters™ Testing and Certification Program
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section R703.8.1 Fenestration installation
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 38 -
CDPH California Department of Public Health
1615 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814
CDPH 01350 Standard Method for Testing VOC emissions from indoor sources
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section R325.1 Low-volatile organic compound
(VOC) materials.”
“FSC Forest Stewardship Council U.S. (FSC-US)
212 Third Avenue North, Suite 504
Minneapolis, MN 55401”
“GEI GREENGUARD Environmental Institute
2211 Newmarket Parkway, Suite 110
Marietta, GA 30067
GGPS.001.GREENGUARD IAQ Standard for Building Materials, Finishes and
Furnishings
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section R325.1 Low-volatile organic compound
(VOC) materials.”
“Green Seal® 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 827
Washington, DC 20036-5525
GS-11 Paintings and Coatings
GS-43 Recycled Content Latex Paints
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section R325.1 Low-volatile organic compound
(VOC) materials.”
“HVI Home Ventilating Institute
1000 N Rand Rd, Ste 214
Wauconda, IL 60084 USA
HVI referenced standard HVI 915, Procedure for Loudness Rating of Residential Fan
Products
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section M1507.4.2.6. Sound ratings for fans.”
“IDA International Dark-Sky Association
3225 N. First Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85719
IDA fixture seal of approval (FSA) third-party certification for luminaires that minimize
glare, reduce light trespass, and don’t pollute the night sky.
http://www.darksky.org/
http://www.darksky.org/outdoorlighting/mlo
http://www.darksky.org/outdoorlighting/about-fsa
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 39 -
“RESNET® Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Systems Standards
Residential Energy Services Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 4561
Oceanside, CA 92052-4561
http://resnet.us
RESNET® reference standard Grade I and Grade II Insulation
Referenced in Amended 2012 IRC Section N1102.2 Specific insulation requirements.
(124) APPENDIX E, MANUFACTURED HOUSING USED AS DWELLINGS, is hereby
adopted in its entirety.
(125) APPENDIX F, RADON CONTROL METHODS, is hereby adopted and amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
““AAppppeenn
ddiixx FF
–– RRAADD
OONN CCOONN
TTRROOLL MM
EETTHHOODDSS
SECTION AF101 TITLE, SCOPE AND PURPOSE
AF101.1 Title. These provisions shall be known as Appendix Chapter F, the FORT
COLLINS RADON RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION CODE FOR ONE- AND TWO-
FAMILY DWELLINGS, and shall be cited as such and will be referred to herein as “this
appendix.”
AF101.2 Scope. The provisions of this appendix shall apply to new one- and two-family
dwellings completely separated from adjacent dwellings by unobstructed physical space
(detached) and multiple, attached single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than
three stories in height, with each townhouse having its own separate means of egress.
AF01.3 Purpose. The purpose of this appendix is to provide minimum requirements to
enhance the public safety, health and general welfare, through construction methods
designed and installed to resist entry of radon gas into the occupied spaces of buildings
regulated by this appendix.
SECTION AF102
DEFINITIONS
AF102.1 General. For the purpose of these requirements, the terms used shall be defined
as follows:
DWELLING UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. An independent building
completely separated from adjacent dwellings by unobstructed physical space,
exclusively containing one dwelling unit located entirely on a separately recorded and
platted parcel of land (site) bounded by property lines, which parcel is deeded exclusively
for such single-family dwelling.
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 40 -
DWELLING UNIT, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED. An independent building
completely separated from adjacent dwellings by unobstructed physical space,
exclusively containing two dwelling units located entirely on a separately recorded and
platted parcel of land (site) bounded by property lines, which parcel is deeded exclusively
for such two-family dwelling.
FOUNDATION DRAIN SYSTEM. A continuous length of drain tile, perforated pipe,
or filter mat extending around all or part of the internal or external perimeter of a
basement or crawl space footing designed to collect and drain away excess subsurface
water.
RADON. A naturally occurring, chemically inert, radioactive gas that is not detectable
by human senses, that can move readily through particles of soil and rock, and that can
accumulate under the slabs and foundations of homes where it can easily enter the living
space through construction cracks and openings.
SOIL-GAS-RETARDER. A continuous membrane of 3-mil (0.075 mm) cross-linked
polyethylene or other equivalent material used to retard the flow of soil gases into a
building.
SUBFLOOR. A concrete slab or other approved permanent floor system that directly
contacts the ground and is within the walls of the living spaces of the building.
SUB-MEMBRANE DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM. A system designed to achieve
lower sub-membrane air pressure relative to crawl space air pressure by use of a vent
drawing air from beneath the soil-gas-retarder membrane.
SUB-SLAB DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM (Passive). A system designed to
achieve lower sub-slab air pressure relative to indoor air pressure by use of a vent pipe
routed through the conditioned space of a building and connecting the sub-slab area with
outdoor air, thereby relying on the convective flow of air upward in the vent to draw air
from beneath the slab.
TOWNHOUSE. A single-family dwelling unit constructed as part of a group of two or
more attached individual dwelling units, each of which is separated from the other from
the foundation to the roof and is located entirely on a separately recorded and platted
parcel of land (site) bounded by property lines, which parcel is deeded exclusively for
such single-family dwelling.
SECTION AF103 REQUIREMENTS
AF103.1 General. The following required construction methods are intended to resist
radon entry and prepare the building for post-construction radon mitigation (see Figure
AF102).
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 41 -
AF103.2 Subfloor preparation. A layer of gas-permeable material shall be placed under
all subfloors. The gas-permeable layer shall consist of one of the following methods
except that, where fills of aggregate size less than that described in Method 1 are used
beneath a slab, Method 2,3, 4, or 5 must be used.
1. A uniform layer of clean aggregate, a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) thick. The
aggregate shall consist of material that will pass through a 2-inch (51 mm) sieve and be
retained by a 1/4 -inch (6.4 mm) sieve. In buildings where interior footings or other
barriers separate sub-grade areas, penetrations through the interior footing or barrier
equal to a minimum of 12 square inches (0.094 m
2
) per 10 feet (3.048 m) of barrier
length shall be provided. A minimum of two penetrations shall be provided per
separation and be evenly spaced along the separation.
EXCEPTION:
In buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, separate
radon vent pipes may be installed for each sub-grade area as specified in Section
AF103.5.2 in lieu of penetrations through the barrier.
2. A foundation drain pipe system installed under concrete floor slab areas less than
2,000 square feet (186 m
2
), consisting of a continuous loop of minimum 3-inch (76 mm.)
diameter perforated pipe shall be laid in the sub-grade with the top of the pipe located 1
inch (25.4 mm) below the concrete slab. The pipe may be rigid or flexible but shall have
perforations fully around the circumference with a free air space equal to 1.83 square
inches per square foot (127 cm
2
/ m
2
) of exterior pipe surface area. Such pipe shall be
wrapped with approved filter material to prevent blocking of pipe perforations. The pipe
loop shall be located inside of the exterior perimeter foundation walls not more than 12
inches (305 mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In buildings where interior
footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the loop of pipe shall penetrate or
pass beneath such interior footings or barriers. For slab areas greater than 2,000 square
feet (186 m
2
) but less than 4,000 square feet (372 m
2
), the preceding configuration may
be used provided a minimum of 4-inch diameter (102 mm) pipe is installed. Slabs in
excess of 4,000 square feet (372 m
2
) shall have under them separate loops for every
additional 2,000 square feet (186 m
2
) of slab area when 3-inch (76 mm) diameter pipe is
used; or slabs may have separate loops provided for each additional increment in area
between 2,000 square feet (186 m
2
) and 4,000 square feet (372 m
2
) when 4-inch (102
mm) diameter pipe is used.
3. A foundation drain soil gas collection mat system installed under concrete floor
slab areas of 2,000 square feet (186 m
2
) or less, consisting of a continuous rectilinear
loop of soil gas collection mat or drainage mat having minimum dimensions of 1 inch in
height by 12 inches in width (25.4 mm in height x 305 mm in width) and a nominal
- 42 -
entering the matrix. All breaches and joints in the filter material shall be repaired prior to
the placement of the slab. The loop shall be located inside the exterior perimeter
foundation walls and within 12 inches (305 mm) from the perimeter foundation walls. In
buildings where interior footings or other barriers separate the sub-grade area, the mat
shall penetrate these interior footings or barriers to form a continuous loop around the
exterior perimeter.
Slabs larger than 2,000 square feet (186 m
2
) but less than 4,000 square feet (372 m
2
) shall
have under them an additional strip of mat that bisects the loop forming two areas
approximately equally divided by the two halves of the rectilinear loop. Slabs larger than
4,000 square feet (372 m
2
) shall have separate loops for each 2,000 (186 m
2
) square feet;
or for each 4,000 square feet (372 m
2
) if a loop is bisected as specified in the preceding
configuration.
4. A uniform layer of sand (native or fill), a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) thick,
overlain by a layer or strips of geo-textile drainage matting designed to allow the lateral
flow of soil gases.
5. Other materials, systems or floor designs with demonstrated capability to permit
depressurization across the entire sub-floor area.
AF103.3 Entry routes. Potential radon entry routes shall be closed in accordance with
Sections AF103.3.1 through AF103.3.11.
AF103.3.1 Floor openings. Openings around bathtubs, showers, water closets,
pipes, wires or other objects that penetrate concrete slabs or other floor assemblies
shall be filled with a polyurethane caulk or equivalent sealant applied in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
AF103.3.2 Concrete joints. All control joints, isolation joints, construction joints
and any other joints in concrete slabs or between slabs and foundation walls shall
be sealed with a caulk or sealant. Gaps and joints shall be cleared of loose
material and filled with polyurethane caulk or other elastomeric sealant applied in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
AF103.3.3 Condensate drains. Condensate drains shall be trapped or routed
through non- perforated pipe to daylight.
AF103.3.4 Sumps. Sump pits open to soil or serving as the termination point for
sub-slab or exterior drain tile loops shall be covered with a gasketed or otherwise
sealed lid. Sumps used as the suction point in a sub-slab depressurization system
shall have a lid designed to accommodate the vent pipe. Sumps used as a floor
drain shall have a lid equipped with a trapped inlet and view port.
AF103.3.5 Foundation walls. Hollow block masonry foundation walls shall be
constructed with either a continuous course of solid masonry, one course of
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 43 -
masonry grouted solid, or a solid concrete beam at or above finished ground
surface to prevent passage of air from the interior of the wall into the living space.
Where a brick veneer or other masonry ledge is installed, the course immediately
below that ledge shall be sealed. Joints, cracks or other openings around all
penetrations of both exterior and interior surfaces of masonry block or wood
foundation walls below the ground surface shall be filled with polyurethane caulk
or equivalent sealant. Penetrations of concrete walls shall be filled.
AF103.3.6 Dampproofing. The exterior surfaces of portions of concrete and
masonry block walls below the ground surface shall be damp-proofed in
accordance with Section R406 of this appendix.
AF103.3.7 Air-handling units. Air-handling units in crawl spaces shall be sealed
to prevent air from being drawn into the unit.
Exception: Units with gasketed seams or units that are otherwise sealed by the
manufacturer to prevent leakage.
AF103.3.8 Ducts. Ductwork passing through or beneath a slab shall be of
seamless material unless the air-handling system is designed to maintain
continuous positive pressure within such ducting. Joints in such ductwork shall
be sealed to prevent air leakage. Ductwork located in crawl spaces shall have all
seams and joints sealed by closure systems in accordance with Section
M1601.3.1.
AF103.4 Sub-membrane depressurization system. In buildings with interior structural
floors directly above under-floor spaces containing exposed soil surfaces that are not
protected by a sub-slab depressurization system, the following components of a sub-
membrane depressurization system shall be installed during construction.
Exception: Buildings in which an approved mechanical ventilation system complying
with Section R408 or such other equivalent system that provides equivalent
depressurization across the entire sub-membrane area as determined by the building
official is installed in the under-floor spaces.
AF103.4.1Ventilation. Crawl spaces and similar under-floor spaces shall be
provided with ventilation complying with Section R408.
AF103.4.2 Soil-gas-retarder. The exposed soil in under-floor spaces shall be
covered with a continuous layer of soil-gas-retarder. Such ground cover joints
shall overlap 6 inches (152 mm) and be sealed or taped. The edges of the ground
cover shall extend a minimum of 6 inches (152mm) up onto all foundation walls
enclosing the under-floor space and shall be attached and sealed to foundation
walls in an approved manner.
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 44 -
AF103.4.3 Vent pipe riser. A plumbing tee or other approved connection shall
be inserted horizontally beneath the sheeting and connected to a 3- or 4-inch-
diameter (76 mm or 102 mm) fitting with a vertical vent pipe installed through the
sheeting. The vent pipe shall be extended up through the building floors, and shall
terminate at least 12 inches (305 mm) above the roof in a location at least 10 feet
(3.048 m) away from any window or other opening into the conditioned spaces of
the building at a point that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m) below the exhaust point
and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening in adjoining or adjacent
buildings.
AF103.5 Sub-slab depressurization system. The following components of a sub-slab
depressurization system shall be installed during construction under basement or slab-on-
grade floors.
AF103.5.1 Vent pipe riser. A minimum 3-inch-diameter (76 mm) ABS or PVC
DWV pipe, or equivalent gas-tight pipe shall be embedded vertically into the sub-
slab aggregate or other permeable material before the slab is cast. A “T” fitting or
equivalent method shall be used to ensure that the pipe opening remains within
the sub-slab permeable material. Alternatively, the 3-inch (76 mm) pipe shall be
inserted directly into an interior perimeter drain tile loop or through a sealed sump
cover where the sump is exposed to the sub-slab aggregate or connected to it
through a drainage system.
All vent pipes shall be extended up through the building floors and terminate at
least 12 inches (305 mm) above the surface of the roof in a location at least 10
feet (3.048 m) away from any window, air intake, or other opening into the
conditioned spaces of the building that is less than 2 feet (0.610 m) below the
exhaust point, and 10 feet (3.048 m) from any window or other opening in
adjoining or adjacent buildings. The discharge end of vent pipe terminations shall
be unobstructed and protected from small animal entry with a corrosion-resistant
screen having openings between .25 inch (6.4 mm) and .5 inch (12.7 mm).
AF103.5.2 Multiple vent pipes. In buildings where interior footings or other
barriers separate the sub-slab aggregate or other gas-permeable material, each
area shall be fitted with an individual vent pipe. Vent pipes shall connect to a
single vent that terminates above the roof or, in the alternative, each individual
vent pipe shall terminate separately above the roof.
AF103.6 Vent pipe drainage. All components of the radon vent pipe system shall be
installed to provide positive drainage to the ground beneath the slab or soil-gas retarder.
AF103.7 Vent pipe accessibility. Radon vent pipes shall be accessible for fan
installation through an attic or other area outside the habitable space.
Exception: The radon vent pipe need not be accessible in an attic space where an
approved roof-top electrical supply is provided.
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 45 -
AF103.8 Vent pipe identification and notification. All exposed and visible interior
radon vent pipes shall be conspicuously identified with at least one label on each floor
and in attics provided with access openings. The label shall read substantially as follows:
Radon Reduction System. In addition to the preceding label, a notice shall be placed in a
conspicuous area near the vent pipe that states the following:
This radon reduction system is not required to be tested and is a “passive” system,
relying entirely on natural ventilation. Occupants are advised to test for radon and take
remedial action as necessary by installing a continuously-operating fan located in the
vent pipe (access typically provided in the attic) and connected to the nearby provided
electrical outlet. Call 1-800-767-radon for more information.
AF103.9 Combination foundations. Combination basement/crawl space or slab-on-
grade/crawl space foundations shall have separate radon vent pipes installed in each type
of foundation area. Each radon vent pipe shall terminate above the roof or shall be
connected to a single vent that terminates above the roof.
AF103.10 Building depressurization. Joints in air ducts and plenums in unconditioned
spaces shall be substantially air tight and permanently sealed with an approved sealant,
mastic, or other approved methods. Thermal envelope air infiltration requirements shall
comply with the energy conservation provisions in the energy conservation code
currently enacted by the City. Firestopping shall be in conformance with the most recent
general building code enacted by the City or meet the requirements contained in Section
R602.8.
AF103.11 Provisions for future depressurization fan installation. Permanent
provisions shall be made for the future installation of an in-line fan to be connected to
every radon vent pipe. Such designated fan locations shall be outside of the conditioned
envelope of the building, such as in the attic, garage and similar locations, excluding
crawl spaces and other interior under-floor spaces. Designated locations shall
accommodate an unobstructed permanent cylindrical space with the following minimum
dimensions: 12 inches (305 mm) measured radially around the radon vent pipe along a
vertical distance of 30 inches (760 mm). Designated fan locations shall be permanently
accessible for servicing and maintenance. An electrical circuit shall be provided within 4
feet (1.219 m) of and within sight from designated fan locations. Such circuit shall have a
means of positive disconnection and be terminated in an approved electrical outlet in
accordance with the applicable current electric code.
AF103.12 Depressurization fan system activation. When a passive system constructed
in accordance with this appendix is to be converted to an active system, an approved in-
line fan shall be installed in a designated fan location as specified in Section AF103.11.1.
Additionally, an approved permanent electric light fixture and in-line pipe couplings that
facilitate fan replacement shall be provided. The in-line fan shall be designed to operate
continuously for a period of not less than five years and have a minimum air-flow rating
as established by the building official. A readily accessible manometer or other approved
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 46 -
warning device that notifies occupants of a fan malfunction by a visible or audible signal
shall be installed within the dwelling unit. A separate permit shall be required for
installation of such fan when it is not installed at the time the building is originally
approved for occupancy.”
(126) APPENDIX G, SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS, AND HOT TUBS, is hereby adopted in its
entirety.
(127) Section AG 105.6 Barrier around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds is hereby
added to read as follows:
“AG105.6 Barriers around decorative pools, fountains, and ponds. Decorative pools,
fountains, and ponds which can contain water deeper than 24 inches (610 mm), shall be
protected by barriers installed in accordance with section AG105.2.”
(128) APPENDIX H, PATIO COVERS, is hereby adopted in its entirety.
(129) APPENDIX J, EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, is hereby adopted in its
entirety.
(130) APPENDIX M, HOME DAY-CARE R-3 OCCUPANCIES, is hereby adopted in its
entirety.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 47 -
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 021, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE IV OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPEALING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL
MECHANICAL CODE (IMC), AND ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL
MECHANICAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, since 1924, the City has reviewed, amended and adopted the latest
nationally recognized building standards available for the times; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of City staff, the City Council has determined that it
is in the best interests of the City to align the five interconnected basic construction codes under
one publication year; and
WHEREAS, the five interconnected basic construction codes are the International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International
Fuel Gas Code, and International Energy Conservation Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 2012 publication year of the five
interconnected basic construction codes ought to be adopted and that their counterpart codes
previously adopted should be repealed, both in order to align the publication years of the codes
and also because the 2012 publications contain improvements in construction code regulation;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a significant public outreach program, working
with the regulated construction industry and building professionals; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the five interconnected basic construction codes has been
presented to and recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Commission on Disability,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Building Review
Board, the Electric Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the City and its citizens that the 2009 International Mechanical Code, as
amended be repealed and that in its place, the 2012 International Mechanical Code be adopted,
with amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 5-106 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5-106. Adoption of standards.
Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-16-202,
C.R.S, and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, the City Council hereby repeals the 2009
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 2 -
International Mechanical Code (2009 IMC) and adopts, as the mechanical code of the City, the
2012 International Mechanical Code, (2012 IMC), published by the International Code Council,
which shall have the same force and effect as though set forth in full herein. The subject matter
of the 2009 International Mechanical Code, (2009 IMC), adopted herein includes
comprehensive provisions and standards regulating and controlling the design, construction,
installation, quality of materials, location, operation and maintenance of heating, ventilating,
cooling and refrigeration systems, incinerators, miscellaneous heat-producing appliances for the
purposes of protecting public health, safety and general welfare.
Section 2. That Section 5-107 Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby repealed and
reenacted to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 5-107. Amendments and deletions to code.
The 2012 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE adopted herein is hereby amended in the
following respects:
(1) Section 101.1 Title is hereby amended to read as follows:
“101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Mechanical Code of the City of
Fort Collins, hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
(2) Section 102.8 Referenced codes and standards, is amended to read as follows:
“Section 102.8 reference codes and standards The codes and standards referenced
herein shall be those that are listed in Section 101.4 of the adopted International Building
Code, entitled ‘Referenced Codes’ and shall be considered part of the requirements of
this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.”
Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the
listing of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer’s
installation instructions shall apply.
(3) Section 103 Department of Mechanical Inspection is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
“SECTION 103 – CODE ADMINISTRATION
103.1 Entity charged with code administration shall be as determined in accordance
with Section 103 of the adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Code
Administration’.”
(4) Section 106.5 Fees is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“SECTION 106.5 FEES
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 3 -
106.5 Payment of fees. All items relating to fees shall be as specified in Section 109 of
the adopted International Building Code,” entitled ‘Fees’.”
(5) Section 107.3 Testing and verification is hereby amended to read as follows:
“107.3 Testing and verification. Installed heating, cooling and ventilation systems shall
be performance-tested by an approved agency and adjusted to operate within design
specifications, in accordance with ANSI/ACCA QI 5-2010 HVAC Quality Installation
Specification. Documentation of results shall be submitted to the building official prior to
approval
Exception: Buildings subject to commissioning requirements in Section 3604.1 of the
2012 International Building Code as amended.”
(6) Section 108.4 Violation Penalties, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“108.4 Violation penalties. Persons who violate a provision of this code or fail to
comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erect, install, alter or repair a
mechanical work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the
code official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the penalties and fines specified in
Section 1-15 of the City Code.”
“108.4.1 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set
forth in 108.4, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s),
commences any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit,
shall be subject to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall
be equal in amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more
than $1,000 for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such
violation repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee
or double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater,
for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation.
Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the
City Code.”
(7) Section 109 Means of Appeal is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“109.1 General. Appeals of decisions, determinations and interpretations of this code
shall be made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 113 of the adopted
International Building Code, entitled ‘Board of Appeals’.”
(8) Section 202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended to add the following
definitions in alphabetical sequence as follows:
“Multifamily. Any building housing group R-1, R-2 or R-4 occupancies.
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 4 -
Whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation system. An exhaust system, supply system,
or combination thereof that is designed to mechanically exchange indoor air for outdoor
air when operating continuously or through a programmed intermittent schedule to satisfy
the whole-dwelling ventilation rate.”
(9) Section 304.3 Elevation of ignition source is hereby amended to read as follows and by
deleting the exception:
“304.3 Elevation of ignition source. Electrical devices, equipment and appliances
having an ignition source and located in hazardous locations and public garages, private
garages, repair garages, automotive motor fuel-dispensing facilities and parking garages
shall be elevated such that the source of ignition is not less than 18 inches (457 mm)
above the floor surface on which the equipment or appliance rests. For the purpose of this
section, rooms or spaces that are not part of the living space of a dwelling unit and that
communicate directly with a private garage through openings shall be considered to be
part of the private garage.
(10) Section 312 Heating and Cooling load calculations is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“312.1 Heating and cooling load calculations. Heating and cooling system design loads
for the purpose of sizing systems, appliances and equipment shall be determined in
accordance with the adopted International Energy Conservation Code.”
(11) Section 407 Whole-dwelling unit ventilation is hereby added to read as follows:
“407.1 Whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation system. For new buildings, a
mechanical exhaust system, supply system, or combination thereof shall be installed for
each dwelling unit to provide whole-dwelling unit ventilation. Such system shall comply
with Sections 407.1.1 through 407.5.
407.1.1 Whole-dwelling unit ventilation rate, The dwelling unit mechanical ventilation
system shall provide outdoor air at a continuous rate of not less than that determined in
accordance with Table M1507.3.3(1).
Exception:
The whole-dwelling unit mechanical ventilation system is permitted to operate
intermittently where the system has controls that enable operation for not less than 25-
percent of each 4-hour segment and the ventilation rate prescribed in IRC Table
M1507.3.3(1) is multiplied by the factor determined in accordance with IRC Table
M1507.3.3(2).
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 5 -
407.2 System design. The design of the required whole dwelling unit ventilation system
shall comply with the requirements of this Section. System design documents shall be
submitted, as required by the building official, at the time of application for a building
permit.
407.2.1 System type. The system shall consist of one or more supply or exhaust fans, or
a combination thereof, and associated ducts and controls. Exhaust fans shall be permitted
to be part of a mechanical exhaust system. Outdoor air ducts connected to the return duct
of a forced air furnace shall be considered to provide supply ventilation and shall be sized
to provide adequate mechanical ventilation in accordance with ASHRAE 62.2 and shall
meet the manufacturer’s requirements for minimum return air temperature to the furnace
heat exchange.
407.2.2 Outdoor air intakes. Outdoor air intakes shall have automatic dampers that
close when the ventilation system is not operating.
407.2.3. Exhausts. Exhausts shall have gravity dampers that close when the ventilation
system is not operating.
407.2.4 Air Circulation fan motors. Motors for air circulation fans used in the
ventilation system, rated at one-quarter horsepower or greater, shall meet at least one of
the following criteria:
1. Where the furnace serves as an air handler for the ventilation system, the furnace
shall be certified as an “Electrically Efficient Furnace” by the Air-conditioning,
Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).
2. The blower motor shall be specified as a “Brushless DC” (BL or BLDC) motor by
the manufacturer.
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 6 -
3. The blower motor shall be specified as “Brushless Permanent Magnet” (BPM)
motor.
4. The blower motor shall be specified as “Electronically Commutated Motor
(ECM)”.
5. The blower shall meet equivalent criteria acceptable to the building official.
407.2.5 System controls. The mechanical ventilation system shall be provided with
readily accessible and labeled controls that enable occupant override.
407.2.6 Sound ratings for fans. Whole-dwelling unit ventilation fans shall be rated for
sound at a maximum of 1.5 sones, in accordance with the procedures of the Home
Ventilating. Institute (HVI 915, Procedure for Loudness Rating of Residential Fan
Products).
Exception:
Heating, ventilating and air conditioning air handlers and remote-mounted fans need
not meet sound requirements. To be considered for this exception, a remote-mounted
fan must be mounted outside the habitable spaces, bathrooms, toilets and hallways,
and there must be at least 4 ft (1 m) of ductwork between the fan and the intake grille.
407.3 System installation. The installation of the whole-dwelling unit ventilation system
and equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturers’ design
requirements and installation instructions.
407.4 Performance verification. Performance of installed mechanical ventilation
systems shall be verified in accordance with Section 107.3.
407.5 Multifamily buildings. In multifamily buildings, all doors between dwelling units
and common hallways shall be gasketed or otherwise substantially airtight with weather
stripping, except when the ventilation system explicitly requires transfer of air from
corridors into units.”
(12) Section 504.1 Installation is hereby amended to read as follows and by deleting the
exception:
“504.1 Installation. Clothes dryers shall be exhausted in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions. Dryer exhaust systems shall be independent of all other
systems and shall convey the moisture and any products of combustion to the outside of
the building. Dryer exhaust duct terminations shall not be located within 36 inches (914
mm) of exterior openings into conditioned spaces, crawl spaces, and attic spaces.”
(13) Section 504.6.4.2 Manufacturer’s instructions, is amended by deleting in its entirety:
(14) Section 505.2 Makeup air required is hereby amended to read as follows:
“505.2 Makeup air required. Exhaust hood systems capable of exhausting in excess of
400 cfm (0.19 m3/s) shall be provided with makeup air at a rate approximately equal to
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 7 -
the exhaust air rate. Such makeup air systems shall be equipped with a means of closure
and shall be automatically controlled to start and operate simultaneously with the exhaust
system. Exhaust air rate required shall be calculated based on the total BTU’s of the gas
appliance beneath the hood at a ratio of 100 BTU’s to 1 CFM.”
(15) Section 512.1 General is hereby amended to read as follows:
“512.1 General. When a subslab soil exhaust system is provided, the duct for such
system shall conform to the requirements of Section 1211 of the adopted International
Building Code, entitled ‘Radon-Resistant Construction’.”
(16) Section 602.3 Stud cavity and joist space plenums, is hereby deleted in its entirety:
(17) Section 602.3 Building cavities (Mandatory) is hereby added to read as follows:
“Section 602.3 Building cavities (Mandatory) Building framing cavities shall not be
used as ducts or plenums.”
(18) Section 602.3.1 Return air is hereby added to read as follows:
“Section 602.3.1 Return air. Return air shall be taken from inside the dwelling. Dilution
of return air with outdoor air shall be permitted. A return air path shall be provided in all
habitable rooms by means of ducts or transfer grills.”
(19) Section 603.18.3 Construction debris and contamination is hereby added to read as
follows:
“603.18.3 Construction debris and contamination. Mechanical air-handling systems
and their related ducts shall be protected from the entrance of dirt, debris, and dust during
the construction and installation process. Prior to passing final inspection or issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, such systems shall be substantially free of construction-related
contaminants.”
(20) Section 607.4 Access and identification is hereby amended to read as follows:
“607.4. Access and identification Fire and smoke dampers shall be provided with an
approved means of access, large enough to permit inspection and maintenance of the
damper and its operating parts. The access shall not affect the integrity of fire-resistance-
rated assemblies. The access openings shall not reduce the fire-resistance-rating of the
assembly. Access points shall be permanently identified on the exterior and readable
without the removal of finish ceiling works by a label having letters not less than 0.5 inch
(12.7 mm) in height reading: SMOKE DAMPER or FIRE DAMPER. Access doors in
ducts shall be tight-fitting and suitable for the required duct construction.”
(21) Section 801.19 Multi-story prohibited is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 8 -
“801.19 Multi-story prohibited. Common venting systems for appliances located on
more than one floor level shall be prohibited, except engineered systems where all of the
appliances served by the common vent are located in rooms or spaces that are accessed
only from the outdoors. The appliance enclosures shall not communicate with the
occupiable areas of the building.”
(22) Section 903.1.1 Solid fuel fireplaces and appliances is added to read as follows:
“903.1.1 Solid fuel fireplaces and appliances. Solid fuel fireplaces, fireplace stoves and
solid-fuel-type room heaters shall also comply with Section 5-110 of the City Code.”
(23) Section 903.3 Unvented gas logs heaters, is deleted in its entirety:
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment8.5: Ordinance No. 021, 2014 (IMC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 022, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE IV OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPEALNG THE
2009 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFGC) AND ADOPTING THE
2012 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, since 1924, the City has reviewed, amended and adopted the latest
nationally recognized building standards available for the times; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of City staff, the City Council has determined that it
is in the best interests of the City to align the five interconnected basic construction codes under
one publication year; and
WHEREAS, the five interconnected basic construction codes are the International
Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, International
Fuel Gas Code, and International Energy Conservation Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 2012 publication year of the five
interconnected basic construction codes ought to be adopted and that their counterpart codes
previously adopted should be repealed, both in order to align the publication years of the codes
and also because the 2012 publications contain improvements in construction code regulation;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a significant public outreach program, working
with the regulated construction industry and building professionals; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the five interconnected basic construction codes has been
presented to and recommended by the Affordable Housing Board, the Commission on Disability,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Building Review
Board, the Electric Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Water Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the City and its citizens that the 2009 International Fuel Gas Code, as
amended be repealed, and that in its place, the 2012 International Fuel Gas Code be adopted,
with amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 5-111 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5-111. Adoption of standards for fuel gas piping, equipment and accessories.
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 2 -
Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-16-202,
C.R.S., and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, the City Council hereby repeals the 2009
International Fuel Gas Code (2009 IFGC), and adopts, as the fuel gas code of the City, the 2012
International Fuel Gas Code (2012 IFGC), published by the International Code Council, which
shall have the same force and effect as though set forth in full herein. The subject matter of the
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (2012 IFGC) adopted herein includes comprehensive
regulations governing the design, installation, maintenance, alteration and inspection of fuel gas
piping systems, fuel gas utilization equipment and related accessories for the purposes of
protecting public health, safety and general welfare.
Section 2. That Section 5-112 Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby repealed and
reenacted to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 5-112 Amendments and deletions to code.
The 2012 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE adopted herein is hereby amended in the
following respects:
(1) Section 101.1 Title is hereby amended to read as follows:
“101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fuel Gas Code of the City of Fort
Collins, hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
(2) Section 102.8 reference codes and standards, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 102.8 reference codes and standards The codes and standards referenced in
this codes shall be those that are listed in Section 101.4 of the adopted International
Building Code, entitled ‘Referenced codes’ and such codes and standards shall be
considered as part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such
reference.
(3) Section 103 Department of inspection is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
“SECTION 103 – CODE ADMINISTRATION
103.1 Entity charged with code administration shall be as determined in accordance
with Section 103 of the adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Code
Administration’.”
(4) Section 106.6 Fees is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“SECTION 106.6 FEES
106.6 Payment of fees. All items relating to fees shall be as specified in Section 109 of
the adopted International Building Code, entitled ‘Fees’.”
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 3 -
(5) Section 108.4 Violation penalties, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“108.4 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code, fail to
comply with any of the requirements thereof or erect, install, alter or repair work in
violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the code official, or of a
permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor subject to the penalties and fines specified in Section 1-15 of the City
Code. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be
deemed a separate offense.”
(6) Section 108.4.1 Work commencing before permit issuance is hereby added to read as
follows:
“108.4.1 Work commencing before permit issuance. In addition to the penalties set
forth in 108.4, any person or firm who, before obtaining the necessary permit(s),
commences any construction of, or work on, a building, structure, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that is not otherwise exempted from obtaining a permit,
shall be subject to a fine in addition to the standard prescribed permit fee. Said fine shall
be equal in amount to the permit fee, except that it shall not be less than $50 nor more
than $1,000 for the first such violation. A person or firm committing the same such
violation repeatedly shall be subject to a fine equal to double the amount of the permit fee
or double the amount of the fee imposed for the preceding violation, whichever is greater,
for every such subsequent violation committed within 180 days of a previous violation.
Said fines may be appealed to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI of the
City Code.”
(7) Section 109.1 General is hereby added to read as follows:
“109.1 General. Appeals of decisions, determinations and interpretations of this code
shall be made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Section 113 of the adopted
International Building Code, entitled ‘Board of Appeals’.”
(8) Section 301.3 Listed and labeled is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence to read
as follows:
“301.3 Listed and labeled. Appliances regulated by this code shall be listed and labeled
for the application in which they are used unless otherwise approved in accordance with
Section R104.11.”
(9) Section 303.3 Prohibited locations is hereby amended by deleting Exceptions "3" and
"4".
(10) Section 303.5.1 Natural Draft Appliances locations, is hereby added to read as follows:
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 4 -
“303.5.1 Natural Draft Appliances locations. For new multi-family buildings and new
appliances within additions to multi-family buildings, natural draft appliances shall not
be located within the building thermal envelope or be located in a space where the only
access to that space is from sleeping rooms, bathrooms, toilet rooms, storage closets, or
surgical rooms.
Exceptions:
1. Where natural draft appliances are located in an enclosed mechanical room and
sealed to air flow from adjoining conditioned area and the following conditions
are met:
a. The access to the mechanical room is through a self-closing, gasketed
door.
b. No other exhaust appliances are located within the mechanical room.
c. The mechanical room is provided with outside combustion air as specified
in this code.
d. The isolation of the mechanical room from adjoining conditioned areas is
verified with a differential-pressure test performed by an approved
agency.
e. Such natural draft appliances pass a combustion safety test under worst-
case depressurization conditions conducted by an approved agency, in
accordance with Building Performance Institute (BPI) Technical
Standards for the Heating Professional.
f. Documentation of satisfactory testing results is submitted to the Building
Official prior to approval.
2. Natural draft fireplaces that pass a combustion safety test under worst-case
depressurization conditions conducted by an approved agency, in accordance with
the Building Performance Institute (BPI) Technical Standards for the Heating
Professional, prior to approval.”
(11) Section 304.11 Combustion air ducts item #1 exception is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Exception:
“Where the installation of galvanized steel ducts is not practical due to existing finish
materials within dwelling units that are undergoing alteration or reconstruction,
unobstructed stud and joist spaces shall not be prohibited from conveying combustion air,
provided that not more than one required fireblock is removed.”
(12) Section 304.11 Combustion air ducts, is hereby amended by adding item #9 to read as
follows:
“9. All combustion air openings or ducts shall be readily identifiable with an approved
label or by other means warning persons that obstruction of such openings or ducts may
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 5 -
cause fuel-burning equipment to release combustion products and dangerous levels of
carbon monoxide into the building.”
(13) Section 305.1 General is hereby amended by deleting the second paragraph and
replacing it to read as follows:
“Where natural draft appliances are replaced in existing multi-family buildings, all
appliances with a draft hood shall pass a combustion safety test under natural conditions,
conducted by an approved agency in accordance with the Building Performance Institute
(BPI) Technical Standards for the Heating Professional. Such appliances shall also be
combustion safety tested under worst-case depressurization conditions, by an approved
agency in accordance with Building Performance Institute (BPI) Technical Standards for
the Heating Professional. Should an appliance not pass such test, a disclosure form
reporting the test results shall be provided to the dwelling unit owner. A copy of such
disclosure form, signed by the homeowner, shall be submitted to the Building Official
prior to approval.”
(14) Section 305.3 Elevation of ignition source is hereby amended to read as follows:
“305.3 Elevation of ignition source. Electrical devices, equipment and appliances
having an ignition source shall be elevated such that the source of ignition is not less than
18 inches (457 mm) above the floor in hazardous locations and public garages, private
garages, repair garages, motor fuel-dispensing facilities and parking garages. For the
purpose of this section, rooms or spaces that are not part of the living space of a dwelling
unit and that communicate directly with a private garage through openings shall be
considered to be part of the private garage.”
(15) Section 308.4.5 Clearance from supply ducts is hereby amended to read as follows:
“308.4.5 Clearance from supply ducts. Supply air ducts connecting to listed central
heating furnaces where the bonnet temperature exceeds 150°F (68°C), shall have the
same minimum clearance to combustibles as required for the furnace supply plenum for a
distance of not less than 3 feet (914 mm) from the supply plenum. Clearance is not
required beyond the 3-foot (914 mm) distance.”
(16) Section 404.9 Above-ground piping outdoors is hereby amended to read as follows:
“404.9 Above-ground piping outdoors. All piping installed outdoors shall be elevated
not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above ground and where installed across roof surfaces,
shall be elevated not less than 3½ inches (89 mm) above the roof surface. Piping installed
above ground, outdoors, and installed across the surface of roofs shall be securely
supported and located where it will be protected from physical damage. Where passing
through an outside wall, the piping shall also be protected against corrosion by coating or
wrapping with an inert material. Where piping is encased in a protective pipe sleeve, the
annular space between the piping and the sleeve shall be sealed.”
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 6 -
(17) Section 404.12 Minimum burial depth is hereby amended to read as follows:
“404.12 Minimum burial depth. Underground piping systems shall be installed a
minimum depth of 18 inches (457 mm) below grade, except as provided for in Section
404.10.1.”
(18) Section 404.12.1 Individual outside appliances, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“404.12.1 Individual outside appliances. Individual lines to outside lights, grills or
other appliances shall be installed a minimum of 18 inches (457 mm) below finished
grade.
Exception:
Approved materials installed a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) below finished grade
when covered with a concrete slab 3 ½ inches (88.9 mm) in minimum thickness.”
(19) Section 404.15 Outlet closure is hereby amended to read as follows:
“404.15 Outlet closures. Gas outlets and fittings which allow for future gas line
expansion that do not connect to appliances shall be provided with an approved gas
shutoff valve with the end capped gas-tight.
Exception:
1. Listed and labeled flush-mounted-type quick disconnect devices and listed
and labeled gas convenience outlets shall be installed in accordance with
the manufacturer’s installation instructions.
2. Drip/dirt legs installed at the floor level at appliances.”
(20) Section 405.1 General is hereby amended to read as follows:
“405.1 General. Changes in direction of rigid metallic pipe specified in Section 403.4
shall be permitted to be made only by the use of fittings and factory bends.”
(21) Section 405.2 Metallic pipe is hereby deleted in its entirety:
(22) Section 406.4.1 Test pressure is hereby amended to read as follows:
“406.4.1 Test pressure. The test pressure to be used shall be not less than one and one-
half times the proposed maximum working pressure, but not less than 10 psig (67 kPa
gauge) irrespective of design pressure. Where the test pressure exceeds 125 psig (862 kPa
gauge), the test pressure shall not exceed a value that produces a hoop stress in the piping
greater than 50 percent of the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe.”
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 7 -
(23) Section 409.5.2 Vented decorative appliances and room heaters is hereby amended to
read as follows:
“409.5.2 Vented decorative appliances and room heaters. Shutoff valves for vented
decorative appliances, room heaters and decorative appliances for installation in vented
fireplaces shall be permitted to be installed in an area remote from the appliances where
such valves are provided with ready access. Such valves shall be permanently identified
and shall serve no other appliance. Remote valves shall be operable on the same floor as
the appliance served and within 12 feet (3.66 m) of the appliance as measured along the
floor line. The piping from the shutoff valve to within 6 feet (1829 mm) of the appliance
shall be designed, sized and installed in accordance with Sections 401 through 408.”
(24) Section 410.3 Venting of regulators is hereby amended to read as follows:
“410.3 Venting of regulators. Pressure regulators that require a vent shall be vented
directly to the outdoors. The vent shall be designed to prevent the entry of insects, water
and foreign objects. Vents shall not terminate within 3 feet (0.916 m) of openings into the
building.”
(25) Section 501.8 Appliances not required to be vented is hereby amended by deleting items
#8 and #10.
(26) Section 503.2.2 Well-ventilated spaces, is hereby deleted.
(27) Section 503.5.6.1 Chimney lining is hereby amended by deleting the exception:
503.5.6.1 Chimney lining. Chimneys shall be lined in accordance with NFPA 211.
(28) Section 503.6.5 Minimum height is hereby amended by the addition of the last sentence
to read as follows:
“503.6.5 Minimum height. A Type B or L gas vent shall terminate at least 5 feet (1524
mm) in vertical height above the highest connected appliance draft hood or flue collar. A
Type B-W gas vent shall terminate at least 12 feet (3658 mm) in vertical height above the
bottom of the wall furnace. All gas vents shall terminate a minimum of 22 inches (559
mm) above the surface or grade directly below.”
(29) Section 614.4 Exhaust installation is hereby amended to read as follows:
“614.4 Exhaust installation. Exhaust ducts for clothes dryers shall terminate on the
outside of the building and shall be equipped with a backdraft damper. Dryer exhaust
duct terminations shall not be located within 36 inches (914 mm) of exterior openings
into conditioned spaces, crawl spaces and attics. Screens shall not be installed at the duct
termination. Ducts shall not be connected or installed with sheet metal screws or other
fasteners that will obstruct the flow. Clothes dryer exhaust ducts shall not be connected to
a vent connector, vent or chimney. Clothes dryer exhaust ducts shall not extend into or
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
- 8 -
through ducts or plenums.”
(30) Section 614.6.5.2 Manufacturer’s instructions is hereby deleted in its entirety:
(31) Section 621 Unvented room heaters, is hereby deleted in its entirety:
(32) Section 623.3.1 Kitchens with gas cooking is hereby added to read as follows:
“623.3.1 Kitchens with gas cooking. Gas cooking appliances in residential kitchens shall
be supplied with an exhaust system vented to the outside. Ducts serving kitchen exhaust
systems shall not terminate in an attic or crawl space or areas inside the building and
shall not induce or create a negative pressure in excess of negative 3 Pa or adversely
affect gravity-vented appliances.”
(33) Section 630.3 Combustion and ventilation air is hereby amended to read as follows:
“630.3 (IFGS) Combustion and ventilation air. Where infrared heaters are installed,
natural or mechanical means shall provide outdoor ventilation air at a rate of not less than
4 cfm per 1,000 Btu/h (0.38 m3/min/kW) of the aggregate input rating of all such heaters
installed in the space. Exhaust openings for removing flue products shall be above the
level of the heaters.”
(34) Section 636 Outdoor decorative appliances is hereby amended to read as follows:
“636.1 General. Permanently fixed-in-place outdoor decorative appliances shall be tested
in accordance with ANSI Z21.97 and shall be provided with a flame safeguard device
and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Appliances shall not
be located beneath or within 10 feet (3048 mm) of combustible construction.”
(35) Chapter 8 REFERENCED STANDARDS is hereby amended by adding the following
additional referenced standard in alphabetical sequence:
BPI - Building Performance Institute
107 Hermes Road, Suite 110
Malta, NY 12020
BPI 104 Envelope Professional Standard and BPI Technical Standards for the Heating
Professional
Referenced in Amended 12 IFGC Section 303.5.1 Natural Draft Appliances Locations
and Section 305.1 General.
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
9
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment8.6: Ordinance No. 022, 2014 (IFGC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Tyler Siegmund, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2014 Vacating a Portion of the Fossil Boulevard Right-of-Way as
Dedicated on the Plat of Redtail.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to vacate a portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way that is no longer necessary
or desirable to retain for public street purposes. The property owner adjacent to this portion of right-of-way is
requesting the vacation. This location will be the future site of the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive
Housing project (Redtail Second Filing) which was approved at the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing
on November 21, 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2006, the Redtail development project, located northwest of Harmony Road and Fossil Creek Parkway,
platted several lots and dedicated additional right-of-way for Fossil Boulevard. This portion of the Redtail
development was not constructed and this portion of the project’s approval has expired.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority has proposed a multifamily development project at this location and no
longer needs the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way to serve the development. The Fort Collins Housing Authority
has ownership of the adjacent land. All public and private utilities were notified of the proposed vacation and
they report no objections to the vacation request.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
There are no financial impacts to the vacation of this portion of right of way.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts to the vacation of this portion of right-of-way.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A memorandum requesting input was sent to the utility providers and potentially impacted City departments.
The adjacent property owner and the person requesting the vacation are one in the same and thus no letters
were sent to adjacent property owners.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map (PDF)
Packet Pg. 219
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment9.1: Location map (1650 : Fossil Boulevard Right-of-Way Vacation)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 023, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
VACATING A PORTION OF THE FOSSIL BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY
AS DEDICATED ON THE PLAT OF REDTAIL
WHEREAS, the plat of Redtail included a dedication to the public of right-of-way for
Fossil Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Housing Authority has requested that the City vacate a
portion of this right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, said portion of right-of-way for Fossil Boulevard is no longer necessary or
desirable to retain for street purposes; and
WHEREAS, pertinent City agencies and private utility companies have been contacted
and have reported no objection to the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, the rights of the residents of the City will not be prejudiced or injured by the
vacation of said street right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the portion of the Fossil Boulevard right-of-way, more particularly
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
vacated, abated and abolished provided, however, that:
(1) this vacation shall not take effect until this Ordinance is recorded with the
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder; and
(2) this Ordinance shall be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder concurrently with the subdivision plat for the development
known as “Redtail Second Filing”; and
(3) if this Ordinance is not so recorded by November 21, 2016, then this
Ordinance shall become null and void and of no force and effect.
Packet Pg. 221
- 2 -
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
February, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of February, A.D.
2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 222
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1651 : Fossil Boulevard Right-Of-Way Vacation - ORD)
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1651 : Fossil Boulevard Right-Of-Way Vacation - ORD)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
SUBJECT
Resolution 2014-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the
Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to
exclude properties annexed into the City in 2013 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
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 (C.R.S. Section 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 2013, the City annexed three 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.
Packet Pg. 225
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2014-010
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 2013, the City annexed three 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, THEREORE, 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 C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 for an order to exclude
the Annexed Properties the boundaries of which are described on Exhibit “A”.
Packet Pg. 226
- 2 -
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
Manager may, in consultation with the City Attorney, deem necessary to protect the interests of
the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 4th
day of February, A.D. 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 227
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 1 of 6
HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION
A parcel of land located in the East Half of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 68 West
of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 7 as bearing
South 00º00'53" East and with all bearings herein relative thereto:
COMMENCING at the East Quarter Corner of said Section 7; thence, South
89º59'49" West, 30.00 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of South
Timberline Road, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along
said westerly right-of-way line, South 00º05'58" West, 150.36 feet to a point on
the northeasterly line of Johnston Annexation; thence along said northeasterly line
the following 4 courses and distances: North 86º55'07" West, 81.60 feet; thence,
North 70º20'07" West, 286.00 feet; thence, North 39º29'33" West, 64.42 feet;
thence, South 89º59'49" West, 314.41 feet to the West line of that tract of land
described in Reception No. 20100066406, Larimer County Records; thence along
said West line the following 16 courses and distances: North 18º53'29"East,
280.05 feet; thence, South 80º52'47" East, 140.66 feet; thence, North
43º24'32"East, 68.46 feet; thence, North 45º20'54" West,193.08 feet; thence,
North 57º52'49" West, 191.24 feet; thence, North 48º06'28" West, 109.43 feet;
thence, North 63º34'52" West, 198.72 feet; thence, North 49º45'28" West, 330.86
feet; thence, North 47º12'15" West, 783.31 feet; thence, North 55º07'00" West,
318.91 feet; thence, North 74º09'59" West, 184.15 feet; thence, North 03º02'18"
West, 367.61 feet; thence, North 05º59'16" West, 117.72 feet; thence, North
11º32'10" West, 221.70 feet; thence, North 02º51'46" West, 122.76 feet; thence,
North 09º31'29" West, 49.42 feet to the southerly line of Willow Springs
Annexation; thence along said southerly line the following 18 courses and
distances: North 89º11'07" East, 307.33 feet; thence, North 88º58'07" East, 235.40
feet; thence, South 73º22'53" East, 83.20 feet; thence, South 46º25'53" East, 80.40
feet; thence, South 51º11'53" East, 67.70 feet; thence, South 33º06'53" East, 44.10
feet; thence, South 30º14'53" East, 82.50 feet; thence, South 03º55'53" East, 86.50
feet; thence, South 21º48'53" East, 44.90 feet; thence, South 55º53'53" East, 54.20
feet; thence, South 74º38'53" East, 367.20 feet; thence, South 67º46'53" East,
227.00 feet; thence, South 54º53'53" East, 152.80 feet; thence, South 71º51'53"
East, 121.50 feet; thence, South 68º22'53" East, 243.40 feet; thence South
68º41'53" East, 208.00 feet; thence, South 55º18'53" East, 82.70 feet; thence,
South 52º11'53" East, 234.62 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of
South Timberline Road; thence along said westerly right-of-way line, South
00º00'53" East, 190.54 feet; thence, North 89º40'37" East, 60.00 feet to a point on
the East right-of-way line of South Timberline Road; thence along said East line,
South 00º00'53" East, 536.20 feet; thence, South 89º43'20" West, 60.00 feet to the
West right-of-way line of South Timberline Road; thence along said West line,
South 00º00'53" East, 771.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel of land contains 69.417 acres, more or less
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 2 of 6
DESCRIPTION OF AREA NO. 1 OF THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
PHASE FOUR TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE
69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10, AND CONSIDERING THE
EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10 TO BEAR N00°00'19"E, BASED
UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE N00°00'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 236.19 FEET;
THENCE N89°58'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF
MIDWAY SUBDIVISION, SAID POINT BEING ON THE BOUNDARY OF AREA NO. 1 OF THE
SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION PHASE THREE TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID
POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
PHASE THREE THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES:
1. N89°58'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 435.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT
1, MIDWAY SUBDIVISION;
2. S00°00'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1;
3. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID MIDWAY SUBDIVISION, N89°58'10"W, A DISTANCE OF
639.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 OF THE AMENDED HERSH MINOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 06-S2555;
4. S00°00'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 36.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10;
5. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT A OF THE RHEBA C.
COLTER AMENDED EXEMPTION PLAT (RECEPTION NO. 86045318), S89°58'10"E, A
DISTANCE OF 293.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST
LINE OF TRACT B OF SAID EXEMPTION PLAT;
6. S00°01'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 390.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT B;
7. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACTS A AND B, N89°58'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 995.40
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT A;
8. N00°48'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 390.04 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
TRACT A AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10;
9. ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT F OF SAID
EXEMPTION PLAT, N89°58'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 872.20 FEET TO THE CENTER QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINES OF THE CATHY FROMME SECOND NATURAL AREA
ANNEXATION AND THE CATHY FROMME NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION, ALSO BEING THE WEST
LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10, N00°35'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 2131.99
FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES ANNEXATION;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES ANNEXATION THE
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 3 of 6
FOLLOWING FIFTY-EIGHT (58) COURSES:
1. S32°56'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 75.69 FEET;
2. S21°37'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 45.80 FEET;
3. S46°43'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 25.69 FEET;
4. S78°09'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 108.79 FEET;
5. S89°06'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 44.82 FEET;
6. N58°28'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 31.03 FEET;
7. N52°04'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 50.69 FEET;
8. S74°57'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 53.30 FEET;
9. S57°34'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 57.41 FEET;
10. S34°52'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 146.57 FEET;
11. S48°44'44"E, A DISTANCE OF 34.42 FEET;
12. S70°54'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 85.77 FEET;
13. S63°48'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 33.37 FEET;
14. S43°10'44"E, A DISTANCE OF 58.50 FEET;
15. S32°35'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 37.30 FEET;
16. S25°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 30.28 FEET;
17. N57°42'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 102.12 FEET;
18. S50°09'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 29.46 FEET;
19. S77°09'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 18.38 FEET;
20. N88°41'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 16.02 FEET;
21. N70°27'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 32.99 FEET;
22. N87°41'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET;
23. S78°30'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 85.68 FEET;
24. S85°26'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 86.15 FEET;
25. S54°59'44"E, A DISTANCE OF 18.89 FEET;
26. S70°36'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 23.44 FEET;
27. N75°17'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 27.89 FEET;
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 4 of 6
28. N86°35'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.96 FEET;
29. S76°34'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 50.20 FEET;
30. N85°49'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 16.75 FEET;
31. N78°16'06"E, A DISTANCE OF 44.84 FEET;
32. N70°17'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 20.37 FEET;
33. N58°40'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 23.25 FEET;
34. N49°26'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 42.67 FEET;
35. N33°50'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 28.84 FEET;
36. N41°52'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 24.72 FEET;
37. N54°55'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 15.77 FEET;
38. N64°08'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 18.46 FEET;
39. N49°03'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 108.01 FEET;
40. N34°53'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 15.12 FEET;
41. N25°56'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 11.54 FEET;
42. N14°52'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 51.26 FEET;
43. N33°37'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 16.17 FEET;
44. N58°05'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 23.19 FEET;
45. N74°15'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 28.99 FEET;
46. N67°21'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 14.94 FEET;
47. N49°19'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 15.90 FEET;
48. N35°04'26"E, A DISTANCE OF 12.20 FEET;
49. N12°16'51"E, A DISTANCE OF 25.46 FEET;
50. N00°18'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 36.94 FEET;
51. N07°30'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 25.23 FEET;
52. N20°07'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 25.10 FEET;
53. N30°31'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 15.03 FEET;
54. N46°32'31"E, A DISTANCE OF 12.68 FEET;
55. N72°26'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 47.34 FEET;
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 5 of 6
56. N57°51'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 12.41 FEET;
57. N40°21'26"E, A DISTANCE OF 49.98 FEET;
58. N53°55'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 20.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
WUERKER ANNEXATION;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID WUERKER ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING
FOURTEEN (14) COURSES:
1. N70°44'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 33.44 FEET;
2. N84°32'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 28.93 FEET;
3. S82°56'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 21.55 FEET;
4. S75°23'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 22.16 FEET;
5. S65°59'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 18.09 FEET;
6. S47°25'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 26.58 FEET;
7. S25°57'39"E, A DISTANCE OF 127.52 FEET;
8. S23°04'39"E, A DISTANCE OF 53.88 FEET;
9. S30°42'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 19.32 FEET;
10. S40°50'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 21.12 FEET;
11. S44°55'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 67.22 FEET;
12. S21°43'34"E, A DISTANCE OF 16.90 FEET;
13. S04°44'44"E, A DISTANCE OF 32.23 FEET;
14. N88°32'16"E, A DISTANCE OF 601.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF AREA NO.
1 OF THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION PHASE THREE;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°00'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,689.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 5,298,496 SQUARE FEET (121.637 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 6 of 6
DESCRIPTION OF AREA NO. 2 OF THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION
PHASE FOUR TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 10, AND THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY
OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10, AND CONSIDERING THE
EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10 TO BEAR N00°16'02"E, BASED
UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE N00°16'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
THENCE S89°45'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRILBY
HEIGHTS SIXTH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT
OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, S89°45'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 2,690.71 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRILBY HEIGHTS SIXTH ANNEXATION S00°51'54"W, A
DISTANCE OF 1,349.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF COYOTE RIDGE SIXTH
ANNEXATION, BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 15;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. S89°50’54"W, A DISTANCE OF 1300.31 FEET;
2. S89°51’00"W, A DISTANCE OF 1253.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF COYOTE
RIDGE SECOND ANNEXATION, BEING THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH TAFT
HILL ROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. N00°07'32"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,312.61 FEET;
2. N02°02'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,338.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF CATHY
FROMME SECOND NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION, BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 10;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, N89°53'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 2,569.37 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF CATHY FROMME SECOND NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION,
BEING THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10,
N00°36'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 399.49 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF AREA NO. 1 OF
THE SOUTHWEST ENCLAVE ANNEXATION PHASE THREE;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, ALSO BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE RHEBA C. COLTER
AMENDED EXEMPTION PLAT (RECEPTION NO. 86045318), THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES:
1. N87°23'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 1428.66 FEET;
2. N22°09'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 187.03 FEET;
3. N82°41'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 508.39 FEET;
4. S77°07'58"E, A DISTANCE OF 664.48 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AREA NO. 1, S00°16'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,842.08
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 11,653,178 SQUARE FEET (267.520 ACRES), MORE OR LESS.
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment1: Exhibit A (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
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____, 2014, 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, 2015, 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
effective date of such Exclusion Order. Exclusion of the Properties from the District and entry
EXHIBIT B
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment2: Exhibit B (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
Page 2 of 3
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
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment2: Exhibit B (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
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
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment2: Exhibit B (1640 : Annexation Exclusion RESO)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
Matt Fater, Utilities Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2014, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of
Certain Land Necessary for the Construction of the West Vine Basin Outfall Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused) authorizes the use of eminent
domain to acquire property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall project. In assembling property interests
for the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, the City has encountered two properties with complicated lending
situations. Due to the degree of complication and the properties’ keystone importance, staff proposes the use
of eminent domain as the most cost effective and efficient approach to complete the City’s desired acquisition
of 12.841 acres if all the necessary lender consents cannot be obtained in a timely way. The City has been
working with the landowners and they are agreeable to this approach.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 237
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 21, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
Matt Fater, Utilities Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2014, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of
Certain Land Necessary for the Construction of the West Vine Basin Outfall Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to receive authority for eminent domain to acquire property interests for the West
Vine Basin Outfall project. In assembling property interests for the West Vine Basin Outfall Project, the City
has encountered two properties with complicated lending situations. Due to the degree of complication and
the properties’ keystone importance, staff proposes the use of eminent domain as the most cost effective and
efficient approach to complete the City’s desired acquisition of 12.841 acres if all the necessary lender
consents cannot be obtained in a timely way. The City has been working with the landowners and they are
agreeable to this approach.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2004, City Council adopted the Stormwater Master Plan Update (Master Plan) for the City of Fort Collins.
The Master Plan included stormwater improvements for the West Vine Basin, located in the northwest portion
of the city. The existing 100-year floodplain indicates that stormwater flows will inundate numerous properties
in the basin and overtop several major roads, including Shields Street north of Vine Drive. The Master Plan
identifies a number of proposed improvements to mitigate the boundary limits of the 100-year floodplain.
Specifically, the Master Plan calls for a stormwater outfall channel from the Cache la Poudre River south to
Vine Drive and west to the Forney Detention Pond near North Taft Hill Road and West Vine Drive. The Outfall
Channel, as currently shown in the Master Plan, would convey the 100-year stormwater flows along the west
side of Shields Street to the river, thus eliminating the need to build a bridge or culvert system on North
Shields Street.
Real Estate Services and Utilities staff have been working for over a year with the owners of two properties on
the west side of Shields Street to acquire the necessary interests for the Outfall Channel. Both of these
properties are just outside City limits in Larimer County. Larimer County required that the landowners and the
City go through the minor land division (MLD) process to create the smaller parcels the City needs to acquire
for the Outfall Channel. The County has approved the MLD, but it still requires signatures from all lienholders
and landowners before it can be recorded in the public records.
The landowners have been cooperative throughout the entire process and agreed to the values determined
by appraisals obtained by the City. Staff has a fully executed purchase and sale agreement for the needed
parcels, with a closing date scheduled for January 31, 2014, but the City cannot purchase the parcels until the
MLD has been recorded. The agreement gave possession and use to Utilities staff and their contractors for
six months, ending June 18, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment11.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
City staff has been working on obtaining all the necessary consents from the lienholders. However, staff has
not yet received signatures on the MLD and other needed consents from the lienholders. Without their
signatures, the City cannot close by the January 31. Should the lienholders choose not to cooperate in this
complex transaction so that the City can get clear title to the property it needs, staff would like to have the
option to pursue eminent domain proceedings, if it becomes necessary, in order to secure the necessary
permanent property interests for the project in a timely way.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
The total value of the property interests to be acquired, as determined by formal appraisal, is $344,090.
ATTACHMENTS
1. West Vine Outfall map (PDF)
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment11.1: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 21, 2014 (w/o attachments) (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 015, 2014
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
OF CERTAIN LAND NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
WEST VINE BASIN OUTFALL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City’s Stormwater Master Plan identifies a number of proposed
improvements to mitigate the boundary limits of the 100-year floodplain; and
WHEREAS, one such improvement includes a stormwater outfall channel from the
Cache la Poudre River south to Vine Drive and west to the Forney Detention Pond near North
Taft Hill Road and West Vine Drive; and
WHEREAS, the outfall channel would convey the 100-year stormwater flows along the
west side of Shields Street to the river, thus eliminating the need to build a bridge or culvert
system on North Shields Street; and
WHEREAS, this project involves the acquisition of a Fee Parcel and a Temporary
Construction Easement (TCE) on two properties in Larimer County on the west side of Shields
Street (the “Properties”), as described and shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties is necessary in that the outfall channel will
be built upon the Fee Parcel, and the TCE is required for construction upon the Fee Parcel; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Properties is therefore in the City’s best interest and
would enhance the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, staff has a fully executed purchase and sale agreement for the Properties,
with a closing date scheduled for January 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the landowners and the City have gone through the minor land division
(MLD) process, as required by the County, to create the Fee Parcel the City needs to acquire for
the outfall channel; and
WHEREAS, the MLD has yet to be recorded because there are outstanding signatures
that are required from all lienholders; and
WHEREAS, without such lienholder signatures, the MLD cannot be recorded, and
therefore, the City cannot purchase the Fee Parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to try and obtain the lienholder signatures, but in the
event the lienholders choose not to cooperate in this transaction, staff believes it would be in the
best interests of the City to have the option to pursue eminent domain proceedings in order to
secure the Properties for the project in a timely fashion.
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
- 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that is necessary in the
public interest to acquire the Properties described on Exhibit “A” for the purpose of the West
Vine Basin Outfall Project.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other
appropriate officials of the City to acquire the Properties for the City by eminent domain.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds, in the event that acquisition by eminent
domain is commenced, that immediate possession is necessary for the public health, safety and
welfare.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
January, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of February, A.D. 2014.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Attachment11.2: Ordinance No. 015, 2014 (1666 : SR 015 West Vine Basin Outfall Project)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 4, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Stoner Subdivision
Major Amendment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision regarding
a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of the Stoner
Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street.
The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved through a Type 1 public hearing held May 30, 2013, to
subdivide an existing single-family residence into two new lots, creating a new lot in the rear portion of the
existing lot. The new lot is known as “Lot 2” and is east of the existing single-family residence. The existing
single-family residence remains on a portion of the original lot, which is renamed “Lot 1”. The two lots are
located at the southeast corner of Wayne Street and West Magnolia Street in the Neighborhood Conservation,
Low-Density Zone District (N-C-L).
Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision
approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved
single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2.
ASSERSIONS OF APPEAL
The Appellant asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code.
The Appellant states:
“The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design
of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The
basis for the City staff’s conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing
building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of
nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.l(B), architectural compatibility ‘shall be derived from the
neighboring context.’ The appellants agree that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding
Packet Pg. 250
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
area varies greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural feature or characteristic that is
shared amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.”
“The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that
the predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are
triangular or rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are
typically smaller than the dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number.
Overall, the neighborhood's predominant architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal
extra appurtenances (rooms, balconies, large dormers) sticking out.”
“The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at the hearing that the proposed building is
incompatible to the neighborhood context because the neighboring houses have simple geometric
shaped roof lines with several triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or
square building form. A review of the following photos included in the presentations by the
applicant and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods' simpler, rooflines and
geometric housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual effect of the proposed project's
architectural style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out rooms on the top of the
building is that it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bulk, mass and scale, and out of
character with the predominant architecture of the neighboring homes.”
“Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant
characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained
within the roof line. The staff, and applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the
common architectural feature of the neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second story
floor area is basically contained within the roof line. The photographic evidence clearly supports
this conclusion. The proposed project is not compatible with the dominant character of nearby
homes because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second floor are not
contained within the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an
existing structure.”
“Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(B)
when she decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined. The photos of
houses in the area presented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple
sloped roof lines with second story floor area contained within the roof line are established
architectural characteristics of this neighborhood. The project just doesn't meet this established
common architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer personally agreed with the City that the
style of the home proposed in the MJA is ‘too busy, with too many competing building forms and
roof lines,’ providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in context with the
character of neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or
roofs, they are smaller, secondary and minimal in number.”
The appellant provides photographic illustrations with the Notice of Appeal, stating that:
“Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof
designs, slopes, and simple geometry building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood
and provide common architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's Powerpoint
presentation and are highlighted to emphasize the second story architectural features that face the
street. The proposed house is also shown with similar highlighting.”
HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND DECISION
1. The Hearing Officer’s Findings for the Major Amendment are located on page 2, 3, and 4 of the Hearing
Officer’s decision letter. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 – Building
and Project Compatibility, the Hearing Officer states on page 2 of the Findings and Decision:
Packet Pg. 251
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
“The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project
Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with
homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a
significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be
inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural
compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and
the City presented photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the
surrounding area varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes,
two-story homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary
roof element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-century
ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes. The Staff Report
states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second
story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the evidence presented during the hearing
by both the applicant and the City simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section
3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established . . . the
architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in
this area is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is
undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally agrees with
the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing
building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with
Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the hearing, including those from adjacent
property owners, supported the architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record
to indicate that the quality of the home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA
complies with Section 3.5.1.”
2. For the Appellant’s assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 4.7(A) – Purpose for the Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), the Hearing Officer states on page 3 of the Findings and
Decision:
“The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because
elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a
way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design
which does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district.
As discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and
photographs demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was
undisputed at the hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all
applicable size and height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture,
mass and height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer
to determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with
the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section
4.7(A).”
SUMMARY
Building plans for Lot 2 are the subject of this appeal. Building elevations and a building footprint were
approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes
amended building footprint and building elevations. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on
December 17, 2013 to approve the proposed Major Amendment.
On December 31, 2013, an Appeal to the Hearing Officer’s Decision was submitted, asserting that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically:
1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility
2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) – Purpose.
Packet Pg. 252
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal (PDF)
3. Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (PDF)
4. Staff report given to Hearing Officer (PDF)
5. Materials Presented at Hearing (PDF)
6. Verbatim Transcript (PDF)
7. Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 253
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment12.1: City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment12.1: City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment12.1: City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
-Notice of Appeal - Meg Dunn,
December 31, 2013
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment12.2: Notice of Appeal (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 3
Administrative Hearing Officer
Decision,
December 17, 2013
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment12.3: Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
1
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: December 5, 2013
PROJECT NAME: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
CASE NUMBER: MJA #130045
APPLICANT: Aubrey Carson
Carson Design Studio LLC
413 Cormorant Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Greg and Kathy Obermann
2215 45
th
Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment ("MJA") to Lot 2 of the
two-lot Stoner Subdivision, located at 1017 W. Magnolia Street. The MJA would change the
previously approved building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family
detached dwelling on Lot 2. The MJA proposes a two-story single family residence of 2,051
square feet on the 6,667 square-foot lot.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved
ZONE DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. on December 5,
2013, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence:
(1) Planning Department Staff Report; and (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant. The Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's
formally promulgated polices are all additional evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Jason Holland, Ted Shepard
From the Applicant: Steve Whittall, Aubrey Carson
From the Public: Baron Jacob Locksman, Tavita Silverstein, Andre Muton, Meg
Dunn, Marci Silverstein, Michelle Hafely, Beth Edens, Brett Pavel,
Jim Kramer, Sean Dougherty, Laura Olive, Barbara Haynes
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment12.3: Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
2
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. The MJA complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 3 of the Code.
a. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because
the plans include two new street trees of sizes that exceed the minimum requirements, and
the tree replacement and mitigation plan was approved by the City Forester.
b. The MJA complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c), Required Off-Street Parking,
because the MJA includes at least one off-street parking space per lot.
c. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1,
Building and Project Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in
mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's
conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms,
causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby
homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the
neighboring context." At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented
photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area
varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story
homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof
element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-
century ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman-style homes and Tudor-style homes.
The Staff Report states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the
surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the
evidence presented during the hearing by both the applicant and the City simply does not
support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively established . . . the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment
in the area." The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in this area
is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is
undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally
agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too
many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the
MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the
hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the architectural style
of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the home is
suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1.
d. The MJA complies with Section 3.5.2(D)(3), Setbacks, because the existing garage
exceeds the minimum setback.
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment12.3: Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
3
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
e. The MJA complies with Section 3.6.2.(J)(2), Public Alleys, because a Modification
of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the site.
3. The MJA complies with the applicable standards in Article 4 of the Code for the N-C-L
zone district.
a. The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A),
Purpose, because elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height,
scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area,
resulting in incompatible design which does not preserve the character of developed
single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As discussed above, however, both the
applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs demonstrating that the
architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the hearing that
the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and
height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and
height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to
determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible
with the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with
Section 4.7(A).
b. The MJA complies with Section 4.21(B)(2)(a), Permitted Land Uses, because the
new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the N-C-L zone district.
c. The MJA complies with Section 4.5(D)(1)(a), Density, because both lots are below
the maximum floor-to-lot ratio, and the two lots both exceed 6,000 square feet in size.
d. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(4), Accessory Buildings without Habitable
Space, because the total floor area of the existing garage does not exceed 600 square feet.
e. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio, because the
maximum FAR does not exceed 0.25 on the rear 50% of either lot.
f. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(1), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Lot
Width, because the lot is approximately 72' wide.
g. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(2), Dimensional Standards, Minimum
Front Yard Setback, because the lot is set back more than 15' from the street.
h. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(3), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Rear
Yard Setback, because the existing garage is a legal nonconforming building.
i. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(4), Dimensional Standards, Minimum Side
Yard Setback, because the new dwelling and existing garage exceed the minimum
setbacks.
j. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(E)(5), Dimensional Standards, Maximum
Building Height, because none of the buildings exceed two stories.
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment12.3: Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
4
12/19/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\STONER MA\DECISION.DOCX
k. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(1), Development Standards, Building
Design, because the buildings are constructed at right angles to the lot, the primary
entrances are located on the front wall of the buildings, the accessory building is located at
least 10 feet behind the principal building, the second floor of each building does not
overhang the lower front or side of the building, the front porch is limited to one story and
the roof pitches are between 2:12 and 12:12.
l. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(2)(a), Development Standards, Building
Height because the buildings are two stories.
m. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(4), Development Standards,
Landscape/Hardscape Material, because not more than 40% of either front yard will be
covered with inorganic material.
n. The MJA complies with Section 4.7(F)(7), Development Standards, Subdividing
Existing Lots, because a Modification of Standard was approved as part of the PDP for the
site.
4. At the hearing, the City requested that if the Hearing Officer approves the MJA, the
Hearing Officer impose certain conditions relating to vested rights and applicable land use
regulations. However, the Hearing Officer finds no authority in the Code to address or modify
vested rights or applicable land use regulations in the context of a MJA request. The Code
dictates how vested rights and land use regulations will apply to the MJA, and the Hearing Officer
is without jurisdiction to alter those Code provisions or their applicability in this context.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The MJA is hereby approved as submitted.
DATED this 17
th
day of December, 2013.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment12.3: Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Administrative
Hearing Officer,
Hearing held December 5,
2013
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ITEM NO _MJA_#130045_
MEETING DATE _12-5-2013____ ____
STAFF _Holland__________
HEARING OFFICER
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045
APPLICANT: Aubrey Carson
Carson Design Studio LLC
413 Cormorant Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Greg and Kathy Obermann
2215 45
th
Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to consider a Major Amendment to the two lot Stoner Subdivision
P.D.P. The project proposes to amend the previously approved building footprint and
building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2. The
applicant proposes a two-story single family residence with plans that show 2,051 total
building square feet on the 6,667 square foot lot. The property is located at 1017 W.
Magnolia Street and is in the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density zone
district. The amendment is proposed for Lot 2 only.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The approval of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045 complies with
the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 2
The approval of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA #130045 does not
comply with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
(LUC), more specifically:
• The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Division 4.27, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article
4 – Districts.
• The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Article 3 – General Development Standards.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
S: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
E: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
W: N-C-L; Existing Single-Family Residential
The Stoner Subdivision is part of the Kenwood Heights Annexation, June 21, 1924. The
annexation consisted of 80 platted lots that were typically 50 feet wide by 140 feet deep.
The Stoner Subdivision re-platted two of the Kenwood Heights platted lots, each
measuring 50 by 160 feet and included a total of 15,987 square feet The Stoner
Subdivision re-plat re-oriented the original Kenwood Heights east/west interior lot line to
run north/south to bisect Lots 1 and 2.
The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved as a two-lot subdivision through a Type
1 public hearing held May 30th, 2013.
Lot 1 of the Stoner Subdivision is addressed as 502 Wayne Street and is located at the
southeast corner of Wayne and Magnolia Streets. An existing one-story single family
dwelling is located on Lot 1.
Two Modifications of Standard to the Land Use Code were approved with the Stoner
Subdivision P.D.P. The first Modification addressed Section 4.7(F)(7) which states that
no lot may be further subdivided to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot.
The second Modification addressed Section 3.6.2(J)(2) which requires that portions of
alleys be paved in conjunction with the proposed use on Lot 2.
Due to the Modifications requested with the Stoner Subdivision P.D.P., a building
elevation and building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the P.D.P. approval.
As described in the staff report for the May 30, 2013 P.D.P. hearing, the building design
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 3
approved with the P.D.P. demonstrated compliance with the architectural character for
the project in terms of appropriate size, bulk, massing, scale, detail and articulation.
2. Compliance with Applicable Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low
Density District N-C-L Standards:
A. Section 4.7(A) - Purpose
The Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District is intended to preserve the
character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family
dwellings and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted
subarea plan.
The proposed Major Amendment is not in compliance with this standard. As described
in more detail later in this staff report, elements of the building design are not arranged
to control and mitigate the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with
architecture in the surrounding area. The resulting proposed design is incompatible,
does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the character of existing development and
does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in accordance with
the purpose statement of the N-C-L District.
B. Section 4.7(B)(2)(a) - Permitted Uses
Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the N-C-L zone, subject to basic
development review, provided that the dwelling is on a lot that is part of an approved
site specific development plan. Due to the fact that the project proposes a change in
character to the approved building footprint and building elevations, a Major
Amendment is required.
C. Section 4.7(D)(1) – Density
The project is in compliance with the minimum lot area ratio of this section requiring that
Lot 2 is two and one-half (2 ½) times the total floor area of the proposed building, which
is a ratio of 0.4 overall. The approved building footprint for Lot 2 was below the
maximum ratio of 0.4, having a floor-to-lot ratio of 0.346. The proposed amended plan
has a floor-to-lot ratio of 0.398, which is in conformance with this standard. Section
4.7(D)(1) also requires that the lots be at least 6,000 square feet for single-family
dwellings. Lot 2 remains unchanged with 6,667 square feet provided.
D. Section 4.7(D)(4) – Accessory Buildings Without Habitable Space:
There is an existing garage which will remain on Lot 2 as an accessory building. The
existing garage meets the requirement of this section which states that the total floor
area of the accessory building shall not exceed 600 square feet. The floor area shown
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 4
for the garage on the approved plan is 590 square feet, meeting the requirements of this
Section. The amended plan calculates the existing garage floor area as 576 square
feet, also in compliance with the standard. Prior to approval of a building permit, staff
may require that the floor area of the garage is verified to resolve this discrepancy.
E. Section 4.7(D)(5) – Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
This section requires that lots are subject to a maximum FAR of twenty-five hundredths
(0.25) on the rear 50% of the lot. The approved FAR for Lot 2 is in compliance with this
requirement, with a 0.2 FAR. The proposed amended plan remains in compliance with
approximately 744 square feet on the rear 50% of the lot resulting in a 0.22 FAR.
F. Section 4.7(E)(1) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Lot Width
This standard requires that each single-family dwelling have a minimum lot width of 40
feet. Lot 2 is 72 feet in width and remains unchanged from the approved plan.
G. Section 4.7(E)(2) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Front Yard Setback
This standard requires that the minimum front yard setback be 15 feet and that the
setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks be at least 20 feet. The
proposed amendment continues to comply with these setback standards. For the
existing house on Lot 1, Wayne Street is considered the front setback, due to the fact
that the front door faces Wayne Street. For Lot 2, Magnolia Street is considered the
front.
H. Section 4.7(E)(3) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Rear Yard Setback
The rear yard standard requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, and the
standard does not specify different setbacks for principal and accessory buildings. A 15
foot setback is required for all buildings. The existing detached garage on Lot 2 has a
reduced setback that is less than the standard 15 feet. The reduced setback is
considered an existing non-conformance, and is permitted provided that the garage
building is not altered to further reduce the non-conformance. This is addressed in
Division 1.2.4 of the Land use Code, which states:
“Except as hereinafter provided, no building, structure or land shall be used and
no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, moved or structurally altered except in
conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is
located, nor shall a yard, lot or open space be reduced in dimensions or area to
an amount less than the minimum requirements set forth herein or to an amount
greater than the maximum requirements set forth herein”.
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 5
I. Section 4.7(E)(4) – Dimensional Standards, Minimum Side Yard Setback
The side yard setback standard requires a minimum 5 feet for all interior side yards and
15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. The standard does not specify different side
setbacks for principal and accessory buildings. The approved building footprint is set
back approximately 12.5 feet on the west facing Lot 1 and 17.5 feet on the east facing
the alley. The proposed amended building footprint proposes a setback of 5 feet on the
west facing Lot 1 and 5 feet on the east facing the alley, which is in compliance with the
minimum standard.
No changes are proposed to the existing garage setback with this major amendment.
For Lot 1, the existing single-family dwelling has a reduced setback that is less than the
15 feet typically required for a street-facing side yard. This existing reduced setback is
considered an existing non-conformity, and is permitted provided that the building is not
altered to further reduce the non-conformity.
J. Section 4.7(E)(5) – Dimensional Standards, Maximum Building Height
This standard sets the maximum building height for the N-C-L zone as 2 stories; the
amended project remains in compliance with this standard.
K. Section 4.7(F)(1) – Development Standards, Building Design
The proposed amended project remains in compliance with all applicable building
design standards of this section, which require that buildings be constructed at right
angles to the lot, that the primary entrance be located along the front wall of the
building, that accessory buildings be located at least 10 feet behind the principal
building, that the second floor not overhang the lower front or side of the building, that
the front porch proposed is limited to one story, and that the roof pitch is between 2:12
and 12:12. The amended building plan contains a 2
nd
story open porch on the west of
the building which overhangs the first floor. Because the porch is not enclosed, it is not
part of the second floor area and therefore the porch is not subject to this standard.
L. Section 4.7(F)(2)(a) – Development Standards, Building Height
The project remains in compliance with the maximum building height limit of 2 stories for
the principal dwelling units. This section also requires that the detached garage, which
is an accessory building with no habitable space, have a maximum height of 20 feet and
an eave height that does not exceed 10 feet. No height alterations to the existing
garage are proposed. These standards would only apply to the existing garage if it is
proposed to be altered in a way that would affect the standard.
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 6
M. Section 4.7(F)(4) – Development Standards, Landscape/Hardscape Material
This standard requires that not more than 40% of the front yard be covered with
inorganic material, and the project remains in compliance with this standard.
N. Section 4.7(F)(7) – Development Standards, Subdividing of Existing Lots
This standard states that no existing lot may be further subdivided in such manner as to
create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. A Modification of Standard is
approved with the P.D.P. to address this standard for Lots 1 and 2.
3. Compliance with Article Three – General Development Standards:
The following General Development Standards are applicable for the proposed
amendment to the Stoner Subdivision.
A. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection
The project remains in compliance with this Section. The approved plans provide for
two new street trees, with a caliper size that exceeds the minimum requirements, in
order to provide adequate replacement for existing trees that are shown to be removed.
No additional trees are proposed to be removed with this amendment.
B. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(c) – Required Off-Street Parking
The project continues to provide at least one off-street parking space per lot, which is in
compliance with this standard.
C. Section 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) Building and Project Compatibility
The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics
of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of
the surrounding area.
The General Standard of this section states that:
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. Compatibility shall be
achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of
similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to
the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 7
that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate
area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be
considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural
compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from
the neighboring context.
The predominant character of the surrounding architectural context can be described as
follows:
• One and two-story single family detached residences with architectural styles
that are varied, including eclectic elements of colonial, tudor and craftsman
revival styles mixed with minimal traditional and ranch style houses.
• The scale, height, mass and bulk of the surrounding architecture is defined by
simple overall forms and building outlines. The use of a single simple primary
building shape with one primary side gable roof or a single primary front-facing
gable or hip roof is typical of the area. Overall house forms are typically defined
by one primary roof element with one or two roof elements that are clearly
secondary in hierarchy and scale.
• The majority of houses are one-story, or if two-story, the floor area of the second
story is integrated into the primary roof form, with a minimal use of second-story
vertical walls and roof eaves above second-story windows.
• Windows and roof elements used with second story areas are complementary
with the overall scale and form of the homes, and are typically secondary roof
projections such as shed or gable dormers that do not dominate the overall form
of the buildings.
• A simple material palette is typical, with wood lap siding mixed with either brick,
stone or stucco.
The approved project provides a building design which demonstrates compliance with
the established architectural context in the area, providing appropriate building height
size, scale, mass and bulk to achieve compatibility with the area. Compatible aspects of
the approved building design include:
• The primary elements of the proposed architecture – the overall outline of the
home, the use of gables and hip roof elements, and the use of second-story
elements that are integrated into the roof line – are designed with a moderate
size, bulk, and massing that provides an appropriate transition and compatible fit
with existing homes on the block.
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 8
• An appropriate number of secondary elements such as bay windows, porch
elements and roof dormers are provided that are appropriate in size, scale and
proportion so that these elements do not overpower the overall building form
while providing visual interest and articulated massing on all sides of the home.
• Architectural detailing is provided through the use of building projections and
recesses that are appropriately scaled, stepping down at interior lot lines to
provide transition with adjacent lots.
• A mix of materials is used with lap siding, shake siding, and large windows that
provide a traditional design element that fits the pattern of surrounding
residences.
• The building footprint is set back from the adjacent property lines approximately
12.5 feet on the west facing Lot 1 and 17.5 feet on the east facing the alley,
helping which provides additional space to transition the mass and bulk of the
two-story building from the adjacent one-story homes to the east and west.
The proposed major amendment to the approved building design does not comply with
the building and compatibility standards of this section in terms of scale, height and
massing.
Compatibility is defined in Article 5 of the LUC:
Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or
design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.
Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of
structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that
affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture.
Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the
sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing
development.
• The proposed design does not achieve compatibility with the homes near or
adjacent to the project. The proposed design contains a significant amount of
competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be
inconsistent with the character of adjacent one-story homes as well as nearby
homes. A single primary building form is not clearly defined, and the multiple
forms used do not have sufficient hierarchy within the forms to keep the overall
massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the area.
• The second story has no floor area that is contained within the roof line of the
first story, which is a predominant characteristic of the architecture in the area.
The significant quantity and location of competing wall and roof planes used with
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 9
the design is inconsistent with the simple wall and roof forms of nearby
architecture. The second story floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend
to the top of the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large
portion of the first story, adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the
building. The overall affect is a second story that is not secondary to an overall
primary form, and appears as a dominant form on top of another dominant form,
which is inconsistent with the architectural context in the area. Elements of the
building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a
way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area. The resulting
proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the
character of existing development and does not preserve the character of
developed single-family dwellings in accordance with the purpose statement of
the N-C-L District.
D. Section 3.5.2(D)(3) – Setbacks for alley-accessed garages
This standard requires that garages that are accessed from an alley be set back a
minimum of 8 feet from the alley right of way. The existing garage on Lot 2 exceeds the
minimum 8 foot setback and is in compliance with this standard. This standard is in
addition to other applicable setback standards for side, rear, and front setbacks that are
listed in Section 4.7(E) which are specific to the project’s zone district.
E. Section 3.6.2(J)(2) – Public Alleys, Design Construction Requirements
This standard requires that the public alley frontage of this project be paved in
conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. A Modification of
Standard was approved with the Stoner Subdivision P.D.P. exempting the approved
project from this requirement so that the alley could remain unpaved.
The major amendment does not propose changes to the landscape, utility, grading or
drainage details of the approved plans. Two conditions of approval with the Subdivision
P.D.P. were addressed with the approved plans:
1. A 10 foot minimum site distance triangle shall be provided per the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards within Lot 2 where the alley intersects with the
street right of way. All existing shrubs shall be removed from Lot 2 within the site
distance triangle. All existing shrubs located on Lot 2 adjacent to the alley right of way
shall be removed.
2. A horizontal and vertical design for the 20 foot alley right of way along the east
frontage of Lot 2 shall be included as part of the Final Development Plan documents.
The design shall provide a 20 foot all-weather roadway surface, crowned at the right of
way centerline with a drainage swale on both sides of the roadway surface.
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 10
4. Neighborhood Meeting:
The Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for this major
amendment and the applicant chose not to conduct a formal meeting.
5. Findings of Fact / Conclusion:
In reviewing and evaluating the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, staff makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. The Major Amendment complies with the process located in Division 2.2 –
Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of
Article 2 – Administration.
B. The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Division 4.27, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article
4 – Districts.
The project fails to comply with Section 4.7(A) – Purpose, because elements of
the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk
in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area. The
resulting proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in
maintaining the character of existing development and does not preserve the
character of developed single-family dwellings in accordance with the purpose
statement of the N-C-L District.
C. The Major Amendment does not comply with all relevant standards located in
Article 3 – General Development Standards.
The project fails to comply with Sections 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and Project
Compatibility, because the proposed design is incompatible in mass, bulk, and
scale with the homes near or adjacent to the project. The proposed design
contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall
bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of adjacent one-story
homes as well as nearby homes. A single primary building form is not clearly
defined, and the multiple forms used do not have sufficient hierarchy within the
forms to keep the overall massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the
area; and
The second story has no floor area that is contained within the roof line of the
first story, which is a predominant characteristic of the architecture in the area.
The significant quantity and location of competing wall and roof planes used with
the design are not consistent with the simple wall and roof forms of nearby
architecture. The second story floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend
to the top of the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA/FDP130045
Administrative Hearing 12-5-2013
Page 11
portion of the first story, adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the
building. The overall affect is a second story that is not secondary to an overall
primary form, and appears as a dominant form on top of another dominant form,
which is inconsistent with the architectural context in the area. Elements of the
building design are not arranged to control and the height, scale, mass and bulk
in a way that is consistent with architecture in the surrounding area. The
resulting proposed design is incompatible, does not achieve sensitivity in
maintaining the character of existing development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment MJA 130045.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Site Plan
2. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Building Elevations
3. Stoner Subdivision proposed Major Amendment Hearing Notice
4. Stoner Subdivision approved Site, Landscape and Utility Plan with half-tone
linework visible
5. Stoner Subdivision approved signed Site, Landscape and Utility Plan Mylar scan
6. Stoner Subdivision approved Building Elevations
7. Stoner Subdivision approved signed Plat Mylar scan
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment12.4: Staff report given to Hearing Officer (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 5
Materials presented at the
Administrative Hearing
December 5, 2013
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
1
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
Administrative Hearing – December 5, 2013
Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
2
Project Description
The property is located at 1017 W. Magnolia
Street and is in the N-C-L, Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density zone district.
The project proposes to amend the
previously approved building footprint and
building elevations for the approved single-
family detached dwelling on Lot 2. The
applicant proposes a two-story single
family residence with plans that show 2,051
total building square feet on the 6,667
square foot lot. The amendment is
proposed for Lot 2 only.
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
3
Zoning Map
N-C-L
Neighborhood
Conservation
Low Density
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
4
Aerial Image
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
5
Stoner Subdivision
Existing single family
dwelling at 502 Wayne
(Lot 1).
Amendment is
proposed for a new
single-family dwelling
design at 1017 W.
Magnolia Street.
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
6
View of Lot One From Wayne St.
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
7
A Modification of Standard was approved to
Section 4.7(F)(7) to permit a new lot in the rear
portion of an existing lot.
Section 4.7(F)(7) of the Land Use Code states
that:
“No existing lot may be further subdivided in
such manner as to create a new lot in the rear
portion of the existing lot”.
AA Modificatio MM onn off ooof f St S tandar rd wa wwas aa ap pproved ppro tto to
Background- Modification Request:
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
8
LUC - Building Compatibility
• 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.
• Compatibility: repetition of roof lines, the
use of similar proportions in building mass;
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
9
LUC - Building Compatibility
• Architectural compatibility shall be derived
from the neighboring context.
• Some elements affecting compatibility
include height, scale, mass and bulk of
structures.
• Compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals in maintaining the
character of existing development.
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
10
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
11
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
12
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
13
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
14
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
15
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
16
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
17
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
18
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
19
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
20
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
21
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
22
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
23
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
24
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
25
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
26
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
27
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
28
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
29
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
30
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
31
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
32
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
33
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
34
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
35
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
36
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
37
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
38
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
39
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
40
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
41
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
42
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
43
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
44
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
45
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
46
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
47
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
48
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
49
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
50
Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
51
• One and two-story single family
detached residences with a range
of architectural styles;
Existing Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
52
• Simple overall forms and
building outlines typically
defined by one primary
roof element with one or
two roof elements that are
clearly secondary in
hierarchy and scale;
Existing Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
53
• Two-story homes with the
floor area of the second
story integrated into the
primary roof form;
• Minimal use of second-
story vertical walls and roof
eaves above second-story
windows;
• Windows and roof elements
used are complementary
with the overall scale and
form of the homes.
Existing Architectural Context
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
54
Building Character – approved option
North
East
West
South
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
55
Building Character – Proposed option
North
East
West
South
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
56
Building Character – Comparison
North - Current
North - Proposed
Change in
Character –
Major
Amendment
Process
Required
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
57
Building Character – Comparison
East –
Current
Option
East –
Proposed
Option
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
58
Building Character – Comparison
South –
Current
Option
South
South –
Proposed
Option
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
59
Building Character – Comparison
West –
Current
Option
West –
Proposed
Option
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
60
Building Character – Comparison
Change in
Character –
Major
Amendment
Process
Required
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
61
Building Character – Proposed option
North
East
West
South
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
62
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
Staff recommendation:
Denial
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
63
Staff Recommendation - Denial
1. The project fails to comply with Section
4.7(A) – Purpose N-C-L District,
because elements of the building
design are not arranged to control the
height, scale, mass and bulk in a way
that is compatible with architecture in
the surrounding area.
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
64
Staff Recommendation - Denial
2. The project fails to comply with
Sections 3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and
Project Compatibility, because the
proposed design is incompatible in
mass, bulk, and scale with the homes
near and adjacent to the project.
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
65
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Incompatible with neighboring architectural
context:
• Competing building forms;
• A single primary building form is not
clearly defined;
• the multiple forms used add to the overall
bulk and mass – inconsistent with homes
in the area;
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
66
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Incompatible with neighboring architectural
context:
• The second story – no floor area contained
within the roof line of the first story;
• The quantity and location of wall and roof
planes;
• Second story mass, form and scale;
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
67
Staff Recommendation - Denial
The project fails to comply with 4.7(A) –
Purpose of the N-C-L District and Sections
3.5.1(A)(B)(C) of Building and Project
Compatibility:
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
68
Staff Recommendation - Denial
Conclusion:
• Elements of the building design are not
arranged to control and the height,
scale, mass and bulk in a way that is
consistent with architecture in the
surrounding area.
• The resulting proposed design is
incompatible, does not achieve
sensitivity in maintaining the character
of existing development.
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
69
Recommendation Condition,
if approved:
Approval of this application does not extend the
three year vested right established under
Section 2.2.11(3). Any future Major Amendment
application will require compliance with all
standards of Division 4.7 in affect at the time of
the application.
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
70
Overall Site Plan
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
71
Site, Landscape and Utility Plan
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
72
Supplemental Exhibits
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
73
Nearby Corner Lots over 12,000 S.F.
7333
1. 300 Jackson St. Existing house centered
2. 330 Jackson St. Existing house centered
3. 427 S. Shields St. Existing Triplex
4. 1124 W. Mulberry St. Existing Office Use
5. 1105 W. Myrtle St. NCB Zone; American Babtist owned
6. 600 S. Shields St. American Babtist Church facility
7. 3309 S. Grant Ave. Existing house centered
8. 221 S. Grant Ave. Setback Issue
9. 323 S. Washington Ave. Has existing carriage house; 2 DU’s
10. 531 S. Shields St. Existing Triplex
11. 401 Scott Ave. 14,250 S.F. House not centered;
could be similarly subdivided
Location: Notes:
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
74
Location Map
10 nearby corner
Lots shown that
are over 12,000
Square Feet
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
75
View of Alley Looking North
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
76
View of Alley Looking North
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
([KLELW%
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 375
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 376
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 378
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 379
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 380
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 381
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 390
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
Packet Pg. 391
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
([KLELW'
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 6
Verbatim Transcript of the
Administrative Hearing
December 5, 2013
Packet Pg. 394
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, December 5, 2013
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment
MJA #130045
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Kendra L. Carberry
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jason Holland, City Planner
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER KENDRA L. CARBERRY: Alright, I’ll go
2 ahead and call to order…this is a hearing on Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, Case
3 Number MJA 130045. My name is Kendra Carberry, I’m the Hearing Officer. The order of
4 proceedings are up there. I know it’s a little heard for you to hear; I’ll try to speak up and we’ll
5 try to have everyone here speak up. Feel free to move up here if, you know, if it makes it easier
6 to hear. As you can see, there’s a time for public comment. I’m just going to ask if you want to
7 make public comment, if you would come up to this table so that we can record your testimony,
8 and just give me your name on that sign-in sheet. Okay, go ahead. Applicant first please.
9 MR. STEVE WHITTALL: Good evening, my name is Steve Whittall, I own By Design
10 Homes.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Can you spell your last name for me?
12 MR. WHITTALL: W-H-I-T-T-A-L-L.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
14 MR. WHITTALL: And I own By Design Homes here in Fort Collins. We build
15 primarily in Old Town. I was hired by the Obermann’s, which are the current property owners,
16 to design and build their home. I think that, in order to be able to get kind of the full gravity of
17 what we have to deal with, maybe an overview would be appropriate. And, part of this I was
18 involved in, and part of this I was not…so, in the beginning, I believe that the Stoner Subdivision
19 was submitted to the City for a Type I review for a subdivision. When it was…when it was
20 applied for, obviously the content of what’s required to be able to meet the bar to become an
21 actual subdividable [sic] lot occurs. Seems that process occurred…there were public hearings in
22 regards to it and it was found that basically this lot met the requirements in the NCL
23 neighborhood, that it would be a subdivided parcel suitable for a single-family residence. And
24 during that process, typically part of that process, is a concept of what’s to be built there.
25 Typically that concept, or, if you will, prototype, is used as a guide for varying housing types.
26 Typically, it’s suitable when we’re doing larger kinds of developments. In this particular case,
27 there was a plan that was submitted, and that plan became an approved plan, and it became
28 approved, loosely, with the stipulation on the general note, that really brings us here, that says
29 the final plans are intended to show the general character of the building, elevations, and the
30 footprint for lot 2. Building plans for lot 2, submitted at the time of building permit application
31 may vary from the final plans provided that the general character of the building elevations and
32 footprints are similar.
33 Well, we went about designing a house over the last three months on that site for our
34 clients. We took into consideration all factors that clients hire us to take into consideration,
35 which is, you know, siting, obviously the visual appeal of the house, but primarily I think that it
36 meets their specific needs in regards to housing. We knew that the lot was…that there were
37 conditions that we would have to meet in regards to the lot when it came to the general building
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
3
1 requirements in which we follow, which are typically the square footage, the height,
2 and…elevations at that point. We…during the process, prior to the completion of the
3 subdivision, when my clients realized that this lot potentially could be buildable, they expressed
4 an interest in it. And so, at that point, that’s when I joined in. So, this was on the home stretch
5 of the subdivision process at that particular point. We had numerous conversations with the City
6 in regards to the conditions that would be placed on what my clients would be able to build.
7 And, what we were basically told is, provided that we stayed within a general character, and we
8 met the setback requirements, and all the requirements set forth, that we could move forward.
9 So, we did that…we submitted our plans to the City; we had some issues to resolve at the time
10 that we submitted the plans in regards to compliance issues, which we resolved. So, we believed
11 that we were on our way to being able to build a house. Pretty excited about that.
12 And then, we got a call from the City saying, basically, we…there’s a problem with your
13 house, you need to set up a meeting, and at that meeting…Aubrey went to that meeting, to the
14 first meeting. What we came to realize is that the project, as it sits before us tonight, meets the
15 requirements on a multitude of areas, of which are long and arduous and definable. And then
16 when it comes to the two things that are subjective, it says that we fail to meet the bar, and those
17 two subjective items are character and mass and scale. And, at first glance, you would think that
18 that would be an easy argument, and then you start to look at those two things independently and
19 in relationship to the approved plan. So, I think that that’s where I would probably start to argue
20 the point that, from a character standpoint, the reason why I moved to Old Town thirty years ago,
21 is because it was a place that was diverse, it was interesting, it was…even at that time, it was
22 even a bit gritty. And, I liked that, I thought that added to the complexion of where we lived.
23 And, honestly, the 400 block of Whedbee where I lived thirty years ago, and where I lived
24 recently as well, really has changed very limited in the last thirty years. And, I remember having
25 conversations with people when they would say, well why do you want to live in Old Town?
26 And I said, well I just like the rich character of it all. But I never really was put in a position to
27 have to define what that was. Nor, do I feel like I’m capable of being able to convince you all
28 that I…that I’ve reached a conclusion that all of us would agree on. But, I think my argument is
29 an easy argument in regards to Old Town character. And, I did what’s been being done now for
30 the last twenty years, is just a character study of the general area of Old Town. And, I
31 actually…there’s a PowerPoint…Josh of the…let’s roll through this.
32 (**Secretary’s note: Unidentified individuals had a brief unintelligible conversation
33 regarding the PowerPoint presentation.)
34 MR. WHITTALL: But what I realized today…not just today but over the course of, gosh,
35 a long time…but specifically over the last four or five days, that when you start to look at
36 character…if you start looking at the visual, you know the objects, if you will, that are there, and
37 we call them houses…that you see…
Packet Pg. 397
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
4
1 Okay, so I started to look…I didn’t, I tried not to be too selective, and I did these all
2 within a block radius of the subject property. And, what I found was that we have a number of
3 absolutely interesting structures in Old Town, and it gave me an opportunity to be…and what I
4 got an opportunity to realize today, is absolutely the diversity that’s included in this just small,
5 small area of the thousand block of Magnolia. And, actually this particular subject property at
6 104 Magnolia is really…its view is really present from the house that we designed. This is 502
7 Wayne Street, which is the adjoining property. This is a house that’s across the street on
8 Magnolia. And, what I realized is that I can point out similar characteristics and I can come up
9 with ideas that would formulate a sense of dominant characteristic, if you will, or characteristics
10 that express themselves in a certain architectural style. But, to be able to argue a broad
11 range…from a character standpoint, and narrow my view, such as the one that I think that you’ll
12 see City staff present today, would, one, be unfair to everybody that lives in Old Town that wants
13 to be able to express some level of creativity with where they live, and it’s an implausible
14 argument. So, in regards to that, I think there are people that will probably speak to that, but I
15 think that the property that was the approved plan, versus the proposed plan that the City has
16 recommended denying, in fact are very compatible from a character standpoint. They have far
17 more likeness than difference, and Aubrey can speak to that piece.
18 The second would be mass and scale. And, Aubrey also has information in regards to
19 that, but that equally is…dependent upon your basis or your viewpoint, is also subjective. One
20 of the things that I did today is I recognized that, when you do a subdivision plan, you are
21 required to do a site plan, and that site plan sets forth milestones. One of those big milestones is
22 drainage. And, one of the ways that oftentimes we get around the drainage when we engineer
23 and submit plans, is that we put things up high. And, when we put things high on a knoll, then
24 we don’t run the risk of running into grading issues. But, I think that what, in Old Town, where
25 the lots are narrow, where things are…where we’re working within close quarters, elevation and
26 where we site things is extremely important. In other words, the finished floor dictates mass.
27 And, in this particular instance, when you have two houses…when you have a vacant lot that is
28 bookended on both sides with a house, you have to take into consideration one, the space in
29 between them, and secondly, the basis of which you start to site your house. And, in the
30 approved drawings, we have a finished floor of the approved house that is five feet…the finished
31 floor is five feet above the curb. And, that finished floor was established because the other two
32 finished floors on each side are heightened. But, what isn’t taken into consideration, and you’ll
33 be able to see it on further photos, is…let’s roll down where you can look at it straight on…if
34 you will recognize that Jim’s house, that is on Magnolia and adjacent to the subject
35 property…his finished floor is actually right in here, but he has thirty inches of exposed daylight,
36 if you will, windows into his basement. You have the same, unfortunately we built the fence and
37 blocked the view, but you have the same condition that exists at 502 Wayne Street, where the
38 finished floor is elevated, and then there are windows that access light into the basement. I
39 believe that Jason’s massing study took a finished floor drawing off of the subdivision plan, and
40 what that did is…it put our finished floor six inches above both of these floors here, but we have
Packet Pg. 398
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
5
1 no daylight basement. We have no daylight space. Therefore, the plan that Aubrey…and you’ll
2 see in his elevations and drawing…we were capable and able to lower our finished floor, thus
3 lowering the mass and lessening the mass visible to the street. I think a lot of these things can be
4 seen in further photos. But, I think that this project should be approved based on the fact that it
5 meets every single requirement of the Type I review, that its been thoughtfully considered and
6 designed with sensitivity to the neighborhood, and we think that it’s a project that instead of
7 being brought before a major review, should be a project that the City staff should embrace. And
8 I’ll let Aubrey show you his drawings.
9 MR. AUBREY CARSON: So, my name is Aubrey Carson, I’m the designer on the home
10 for the Obermann’s, working with Steve. And, so what I did, illustrated in this drawing and
11 then…this is actually a photograph that I took today, that’s taken from the street, kind of to the
12 south, I mean to the northeast of our lot. And then…so I took this photograph, took it back to
13 my office, and then I superimposed and sketched in…so this is the house, existing house, which
14 is Jim’s to the east…that is the existing house, the Stoner…Jay Stoner’s mother’s house, 502
15 Wayne Street, and then this is our house that we’re proposing to build sketched in there to kind
16 of give you an idea of how it would fit in the streetscape, scale-wise. Again, it’s a sketch, so you
17 know, to say it’s exactly accurate…it’s as accurate as I could get it, superimposing that, but I
18 think it gives a really good understanding of the scale and character of what we’re looking at
19 here. So, you can kind of split…you have copies of that. And then so, the next drawing is the
20 prototype approved house, and this is what I would consider a colonial or Cape Cod style house.
21 So, that’s the north elevation, or front elevation, and then this is the west side right elevation, and
22 then I have the next slide is actually what we’re proposing to do, so that is the north, or front
23 elevation, and this is more of a Craftsman-style, bungalow-style house. And then this is the west
24 side elevation. So, you know, some of the things that we tried to incorporate were, you know,
25 the lower pitched roofs, and then, you know, details of brackets and change of materials, and
26 shakes, and then details, you know, trim around the window that’s appropriate to that style. And,
27 one of the things I know that Jason has mentioned to me, and he’s mentioned in his staff report,
28 is with the Cape Cod style, you’re able to achieve the second floor by it being under one roof
29 element, and that’s one of the things that he’s expressed a few times to me, and I think I know
30 he’ll elaborate on that. But that’s…again, that’s typical of this kind of colonial, Cape Cod style.
31 It’s got a much steeper roof there. But with the style that we are proposing, and our client is very
32 much in love with…you know, the roofs are flatter, and so you…it’s not as easy to achieve that
33 objective of keeping everything under one roof. I’m not saying it’s not achievable, but it’s not as
34 easy.
35 MS. CARBERRY: Could you clarify, what was option one that you just showed me?
36 MR. CARSON: This is what we have that is the…yeah, this is the prototype, approved
37 prototype. And then here again, this is what we’re proposing to build. So, what we did do to try
38 to scale, so we don’t have these large, two-story walls, which I want to go to a slide a little
39 farther back here… So, this is a two-story that’s just less than a block away. So it has large,
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
6
1 complete two-story walls, and then that’s, you know, facing the street. And so this, again, is a
2 Craftsman-style with, you know, some variation. But what we tried to do is scale that back by
3 pulling the second floor in to more the center of the house, so you have first level roof elements
4 that kind of encapsulate that second story. You know, we feel like…I feel like we’ve done a
5 really good job with that. So, again, in comparison to…this is the front elevation and the west
6 elevation, here’s our proposed one. So again, this has, even though it’s keeping the second story
7 under one roof form, you still have this large two-story wall to the western neighbor, and then
8 that’s also similar. And, unfortunately this is upside down…well, see again, this is the east wall,
9 and you get that large two-story wall that’s, in my opinion, is objectionable. If I was…you know
10 that’s what you see from the alley side, and then here’s what we’re proposing. So that’s our
11 alley side here. So, again, it breaks down in scale and terraces back away from the alley. And
12 again, it’s…I just feel it’s a much more compatible…especially with the fabric and, you know,
13 the character of Old Town.
14 Again, here’s some more of the neighborhood. Again, a lot of two-story walls. And
15 there’s a lot of, you know, diversity in Old Town…got some Craftsman detail to it, but it’s…but
16 what we really try to do is bring a lot of the Craftsman style into our proposed home, but be very
17 sensitive to the neighborhood and the scale of the house. And, like I said, this…I think this
18 really to me gives you the best comparison of, you know, so here’s Jim’s house, which I would
19 consider a Craftsman style house, and it is raised…you know, its thirty, forty inches out of the
20 ground because they have a daylight basement there. And, you know, if you follow those roof
21 lines, and you draw a line, you know…ours, that second story is a little bit taller, but it is a two-
22 story house. This is a one-story, maybe what you would consider a one and a half story, because
23 part of it’s out of…the basement’s out of the ground. So, we would very much like to build this
24 house for our clients, they’re in love with it. We feel that it’s very, very sensitive to the
25 neighborhood, the fabric of the neighborhood. We feel it’s very scale appropriate. It’s not a
26 one-story house, I mean it’s…you know, it was never intended to be that. And it’s not a…it’s
27 not a colonial or a Cape Cod; it was never intended to be that. And again, this is the character
28 that we’re somewhat tied to right now, and again, this is not what our clients want to build. They
29 want to build this house. So, we would like for you guys to approve that, very much.
30 (**Secretary’s note: Unidentified individuals had a brief unintelligible conversation
31 regarding the PowerPoint presentation.)
32 MR. WHITTALL: If I could add also on the bulk and mass of the approved plan…what
33 you see presented was the front, exterior elevation of the approved plan. And, what I find
34 interesting about this is that, if you’re going to do a study in mass and scaling, as obviously was
35 done to get to the approval of this plan, then at least what you would want is you would want an
36 accurate document. Because, in essence, you don’t…the garage is not placed there at all. In
37 fact, the garage…where the garage is placed on the front exterior elevation of Option One is
38 actually where 502 Wayne Street is located. The garage is really properly located behind the
Packet Pg. 400
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
7
1 house, so even in that front exterior elevation; it’s an entirely inaccurate depiction of what would
2 even be possible.
3 MS. CARBERRY: The bottom one is accurate though, right?
4 MR. CARSON: That’s correct…so this is the front elevation of the house…
5 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, I got it. We don’t need to dwell on that, I’ve got it.
6 MR. CARSON: Okay, okay.
7 MR. WHITTALL: So that concludes…
8 MS. CARBERRY: You’ll have an opportunity, you know, to speak some more later if
9 you like.
10 MR. JASON HOLLAND: Well, we’ve already done a little bit of background, so I’ll go
11 pretty quickly through this…just to give a little bit of an overview of the background from the
12 Planning Department. The property…I’m sorry, Jason Holland, Project Planner with the City of
13 Fort Collins. The property, as many of you know, is located at 1017 West Magnolia, and this is
14 in the NCL, Neighborhood Conservation Low-Density District. The project proposes to amend,
15 as the applicant’s pointed out, the previously approved building footprint and building elevations
16 for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot Two. The amendment is only for Lot
17 Two. This is where the project is located...you can see Magnolia Street here, Shields and
18 Mulberry. This is a site plan of the current Project Development Plan that was approved. Here
19 you can see the existing house at 502 Wayne Street, and then this was the approved lot split that
20 occurred with the PDP approval. We’ve already seen the existing house at 502 Wayne Street,
21 that’s the house that’s located on Lot One, at the corner of Magnolia and Wayne Street.
22 A modification was approved with the approval of the Project Development Plan, and
23 that modification dealt with the Code section that states that no existing lot may be further
24 subdivided in such a manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. And I
25 wanted to point that out because that’s why, through the Project Development Plan
26 approval…because they were asking for a lot split that is expressly not permitted by the Land
27 Use Code, staff felt that it was necessary to get an idea of what was going to be proposed to be
28 built on Lot Two, for the building elevations and the building footprint. And what we did was
29 establish an option, a character option, also referred to as a prototype; so that we could have
30 some basis to get some sort of an idea moving forward as far as what could be built on that lot.
31 The Land Use Code talks about building compatibility. What it says is that new
32 developments in or adjacent to an existing developed area shall be compatible with the existing,
33 established character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. Compatibility is
34 also referenced in…as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building
35 mass…architectural compatibility shall be derived from the neighboring context. Some elements
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
8
1 affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Compatibility is
2 referred in the Land Use Code, stating that…it refers to the sensitivity of development proposals
3 in maintaining the character of existing development.
4 We’ve already seen a photograph similar to this from the applicant. Here you can
5 see…this is looking south at the subject property, this is Lot Two. This is 502 Wayne Street, the
6 Lot One that was…this was all one lot here, and then this is the portion that was split off from
7 502 Wayne Street. Here’s the alley and here is the adjacent house to the east. Again, this
8 is…I’m just going to run through these pretty quickly, and the red dot in the map here can orient
9 you as far as where these different buildings are taken.
10 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can that be made larger?
11 MR. HOLLAND: It can’t, I’m sorry, but we could…if it helps, we could maybe scoot a
12 chair up here if it helps. Another thing I wanted to point out that might help, is that the subject
13 property here has a blue line around it. I don’t know if you can see that, but that might kind of
14 help orient you a little bit. This is the existing house that is adjacent across the alley to the east.
15 And again, this is 502 Wayne Street. This is looking north across the street. You can see the
16 houses across the street there. And, following the red dot, we’ll just go down the block and you
17 can see the character of the houses…predominately simple roof forms, overall simple building
18 outline, typically one dominant roof element with one or two secondary elements attached to the
19 dominant roof element. The majority of the houses are one-story…there are some two-story
20 houses and there are also some two-story houses that have the second story contained within the
21 roof line of the second story. Here’s an example of a building that has the second story
22 contained within the roof line. Here’s another example of that. And yet another example of that.
23 A variety of different housing styles…we looked at this one as well…this is a little bit of a
24 bigger example. Overall, the massing is larger, but the forms are still simple. A variety of
25 different styles…another example of a two-story with simple roof forms, simple massing. Other
26 examples of homes that have one dominant primary roof form with a single secondary roof form
27 attached. So we just went around the block and just got a pretty good sample of houses in the
28 area. Again, you can see some of the secondary elements that are…that are added to the roof
29 line in the second story but don’t dominate the overall form of the house.
30 So, just to summarize, some of the things that we wrote in the staff report that staff
31 defined the existing architectural context by which the character would be evaluated. Pulling the
32 common themes that we see from the homes that we just looked at…that the predominant
33 context is defined by one- and two-story single-family detached residences with a variety of
34 architectural styles. Overall…simple overall forms, very important, with building outlines
35 typically defined by one primary roof element, or one or two roof elements that are clearly
36 secondary in hierarchy and scale to the primary roof element, two story homes with the floor
37 area of the second story integrated into the roof line, minimal use of second story vertical walls
38 and roof eaves above second-story windows. Windows and roof elements are used…are
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
9
1 complimentary with overall scale and form of the homes. And again, you know, this…the
2 existing prototype option that was approved…this is the four sides of the building elevations, and
3 you can see some of the common themes are represented with the approved option. We’ve got a
4 single dominant roof form and then we have secondary roof elements that are smaller in
5 hierarchy and don’t dominate the overall form of the building. Overall, there’s a predominance
6 of low eaves with the building…the overall width and length of the building is reasonably
7 compact and the form is simple. The style is…could be characterized as Cape Cod, but the Code
8 does not speak to style, it does not dictate style…compatibility is not an aspect of style. There’s
9 a number of different styles that could be applied to this form.
10 And then this is the proposed option, you can see all four building elevations together.
11 And we evaluated the…the proposal that, when it came in, when we were made aware of the
12 proposed building elevations that the applicant is bringing in, and staff determined that the
13 change in character between the approved option and what they are proposing is significant
14 enough that it required a Major Amendment and a new hearing. And here…I’ll just run through
15 these quickly, but you can see…we’ll just do a general comparison of the approved option and
16 then the proposed option. This is the east elevations, the south elevations, the west elevations,
17 and lastly, again, the main Magnolia-facing elevation, the north elevation.
18 Staff evaluated this and we are recommending denial of the proposed building elevations.
19 The project does not comply with Section 4.7(a), which is the purpose statement of the zoning
20 district, because elements of the building are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass, and
21 bulk in a way that is compatible with the architecture in the surrounding area. The project fails
22 to comply with Sections 3.5.1(a), (b), and (c) of the building and project compatibility standards,
23 because the proposed design is incompatible in mass, bulk, scale…and scale of…with the homes
24 near and adjacent to the project. And, as part of our recommendation for denial, we felt that it
25 was incompatible with the neighboring architecture, architectural context, because the proposed
26 design contains a significant amount of competing building forms causing the overall bulk and
27 massing to be inconsistent with the character of one-story homes as well as…adjacent one-story
28 homes as well as nearby homes. A single primary building form is not clearly defined, and the
29 multiple forms used don’t have significant hierarchy within the forms to keep the overall
30 massing from appearing out of scale with homes in the area. And the second story has no floor
31 area that’s contained within the roof line of the first story, and this is a predominant
32 characteristic of architecture in the area. The significant quantity and location of competing wall
33 and roof planes used with the design are not consistent with the simple wall and roof forms of
34 nearby architecture. The second floor area is defined by vertical walls that extend to the top of
35 the second-story windows, and this floor area extends over a large portion of the first story,
36 adding to the inconsistently large bulk and mass of the building. The overall effect is a second
37 story that’s not secondary to an overall primary form. It appears as a dominant form on top of a
38 dominant…or next to another dominant form, and that’s inconsistent with the architectural
39 context of the area.
Packet Pg. 403
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
10
1 So, based on that analysis and those findings, we felt that the elements of the building
2 design were not arranged to control the height, scale, and mass, and bulk in a way that is
3 consistent with the architecture in the surrounding area. And, the resulting proposed design is
4 incompatible…it does not achieve sensitivity in maintaining the character of the existing
5 development. And, the underlying portions…is language that’s directly relevant and directly
6 taken from the compatibility standards of the Land Use Code. If the project…Ms. Carberry, if
7 you do feel that the project should be recommended for approval, we are recommending a
8 condition of approval, and this is the condition of approval that the application not extend the
9 three year vesting right established under Section 2.2.11-3, and any future major amendment
10 application will require compliance with all the standards of Division 4.7 in effect at the time of
11 the application. What that…essentially what that is, to quickly explain, is that this application is
12 a Major Amendment, is evaluated under the old…what we would say is the old Land Use Code,
13 the Land Use Code that was in effect prior to the recent Eastside-Westside standards that were
14 adopted. And, what we would like to do is ensure that if, for example, if this Major Amendment
15 is approved, but then this Major Amendment is not constructed, and then a year from now
16 another proposal comes in that we would characterize as a Major Amendment for some
17 reason…at that time, we would prefer that Major Amendments cannot continue to come in…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Under the old Code…
19 MR. HOLLAND: Under the old Code. At some point, we would like the vesting to stop.
20 Every time a Major Amendment comes in, the three year vesting period is reset. So this would
21 cap…if this was approved, this would cap the vesting so that any future Major Amendment, if it
22 did for some reason come in, that it would be required to be in compliance with the current Code.
23 Overall site plan…one thing I wanted to point out here, with the overall site plan, is that,
24 with the existing building footprint, a grading plan…a detailed grading plan was approved and, if
25 the current design, or any subsequent design that comes in that is approved in some fashion,
26 either through a Major Amendment or Minor Amendment, we would need to look at the grading
27 and ensure that it works and that the grading plan would need to be amendment to reflect the
28 revised building footprint.
29 Let’s see, I just had a few things that I should probably go ahead and respond, as far as
30 the applicant’s presentation. I’m not sure if this is the time to do that…or, I could also do that
31 later if you want to move on…
32 MS. CARBERRY: Why don’t we let…it seems like there’s a lot of people here who want
33 to comment, so why don’t we let them go ahead and then we’ll have better ability to respond to
34 all of that at once.
35 MR. HOLLAND: Sounds good.
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
11
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, public, it’s your turn. If you would please just make sure you
2 sign in if you’re going to speak, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
3 MR. BARON JACOB LOCKSMAN: Kendra, my name is Baron Jacob Locksman, I
4 have been here twice before for this particular property. I was the original applicant who came
5 before you and the City to get this subdivision approved. Not to get off track, but the first thing I
6 want to point out is that the City staff recommended denial, but then they said if it’s approved,
7 will you give us this vesting agreement. It’s kind of like, well, we don’t want you to do it, but if
8 you do do it, then give us this…throw this little icing on the cake for us. I think that’s kind of
9 ironic and funny that they did that. One of the things I also heard was that there were vast
10 architectural styles; that’s what I just heard from the City, and that’s true, and that’s why I
11 believe that this plan should be approved, because there are vast architectural styles down in Old
12 Town. When I first submitted to do this, I was told, all that we are requiring is the building
13 elevations, and that this drawing is intended to show the general character of the building
14 elevations, and that building elevations submitted at the time of building permit application may
15 vary from these plans provided the general character of the building elevations is similar and the
16 plans are in compliance. It says right here, two prototype options intended to demonstrate the
17 architectural character of the project…and I believe that where we’re getting off track here is, I
18 keep hearing approved plan…that plan was always intended for architectural character to show
19 that a two-story building of…well, first of all that a two-story building could be built, and that it
20 would be a prototype, not a full blown specific plan. It keeps getting…this plan that these guys
21 have keeps getting compared to that plan.
22 So, I really want to point out that that elevation is for a plan that was built in SideHill,
23 which is basically a cookie-cutter neighborhood, it’s a stock plan that we submitted that
24 happened to fit with the architectural character of Old Town because there are vast architectural
25 styles, Cape Cod being one of many. These gentlemen thoughtfully put together a site-specific
26 plan for this particular lot. If that doesn’t show the dedication to the proper architectural style
27 with size and mass and bulking, which is what’s really at stake here, then I don’t know what
28 does. They specifically took into consideration the height of the lot, the surrounding properties,
29 the surrounding buildings and neighbor, while they designed this plan. That was not the case
30 with these elevations…these were submitted because we were told that we needed to do that. So,
31 when I look through this over and over again, these gentlemen are in compliance over and over
32 again with the Land Use Code and the Building Code. They have asked to build a two-story
33 home, which is in compliance…it meets the LFAR requirements. It is challenging that you guys,
34 you know, again we were told all that we need to supply is the building elevations. The City
35 requires the drainage plan…yes this footprint is a little bit bigger and will require a little
36 modified drainage plan, but the City themselves said that the problem is not with the footprint,
37 that…the staff doesn’t believe that the architectural elements are in character with the
38 neighborhood. That is so subjective, I can’t even tell you.
Packet Pg. 405
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
12
1 I think that you’ll hear from many of these people in the audience, including myself, that
2 this certainly does meet those requirements. It was designed specifically for this lot. The fact
3 that they keep going back to elevations that were submitted at the time of the original approval,
4 that were required by the City, again to show general character…that’s what they are, general
5 character as a prototype. They are not the end all to be all for what can be built there, and I
6 actually think that the plan these guys have is significantly better. So, that’s all I have to say
7 about that. I highly recommend that you approve this; I think it would be in the best interest of
8 both the neighborhood and the character of Old Town. It is diverse, it’s not homogenous…you
9 can walk around it anywhere, on the Eastside or the Westside and see that part of the reason
10 people want to be there is the diversity of the architectural styles. And trying to generalize
11 character is a slippery slope, I believe, for the City to do that.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
13 MR. LOCKSMAN: Thanks.
14 MS. CARBERRY: Anyone else?
15 MS. TAVITA SILVERSTEIN: My name is Tavita Silverstein and…what I’ve seen, I
16 believe that they’ve stayed within the character of Old Town. Old Town, again, is very diverse;
17 that is what is the nice part of Old Town is the diversity within Old Town. I agree that the newer
18 plan is actually more appealing to the eye…less of an…more appealing and goes with the
19 neighborhood better than the approved plan. I don’t find an eyesore with elevations or mass in
20 the building. I think these gentlemen have taken their time and really concentrated on making a
21 flow with the house to match the existing other houses in the neighborhood, especially more of
22 the two stories. And, they’ve really looked at the lot and taken the best they can…the square
23 footage and mass that they have and make the best housing for an individual who’s purchasing
24 this lot. So, I feel it should be approved; I think it would actually be helpful to the subdivision
25 and not hurtful. I think it definitely is within the character and diversity of Old Town.
26 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
27 MR. ANDRE MOUTON: Hi, my name is Andre Mouton. I’ve lived in Old Town for
28 over thirty years and my five kids were all born and raised here. I love Fort Collins, I love Old
29 Town. I guess what…I’m just learning what’s going on here tonight and I think it’s revolving
30 around the new Land Use Code, which, in my opinion…is that right? This was part of the East-
31 West thing? Is that why this is? Is this Code new that you’re interpreting here?
32 MS. CARBERRY: No, they’re under the old Code. This whole application is under
33 the…
34 MR. MOUTON: So…they don’t comply with the old Code in your opinion, is what
35 you’re saying?
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
13
1 MR. HOLLAND: Correct.
2 MR. MOUTON: Okay, just wanted to get that clear. So…
3 MR. HOLLAND: It’s the compatibility standards are…have not changed.
4 MR. MOUTON: Well, that’s kind of good news, I think, from my perspective. So, there
5 was a famous football coach named Bum Phillips and he has a famous saying…he was talking
6 about the coach of the Miami Dolphins, and what he said about that guy was that that guy is so
7 good, he can take his team and beat yours then he can take your team and beat his. He’s a damn
8 good coach. And the point of that is that, a damn good lawyer can build a case to prove anything
9 they want. You can choose and you can manipulate data and you can put the right pictures up
10 there that you like…basically what I see going on here is a tragedy. These people…the house
11 they designed is clearly more appealing than the house…that junky looking track home they had
12 up there before. So, it’s a tragedy…in just the real world, that’s a terrible thing that you’re
13 saying don’t build this beautiful house, build this crappy looking house. That’s too bad. Now, if
14 you have to interpret the Code in such a way that that’s just the way it’s going to be, that you
15 take the worst looking homes in Old Town and say, look…you have to build a house like this.
16 That’s what looks like is going on in here to me, it’s madness, and I really appeal to your
17 common sense here to do the right thing. Let these people build this beautiful home. I think
18 it’s…they’ve tried to stay within the rigors of the, what seem to be gray area laws that you guys
19 are dealing with. And, I appreciate you guys didn’t write the laws, you’re just trying to uphold
20 them. But, like I said, you can build your argument however you want; you’re choosing to a
21 tragic result here, in my opinion. I think you should let these people build their home. It’s just
22 stupid; it makes no sense to me. I just cannot fathom why you would not let these guys build this
23 home. I think you could…I think you guys are smart, you’re creative, you can build an argument
24 that says this home fits those rules. I know you can do it and I wish you would. That’s all I have
25 to say.
26 MS. MEG DUNN: Hi, my name is Meg Dunn, I live at 720 West Oak. I am a member of
27 Protect Our Old Town Homes. We look a lot at character of houses. The houses in that
28 neighborhood…actually there’s a lot of Tudor-style homes, which Jason showed in several of his
29 pictures. And, it’s that Tudor style that is able to incorporate a second story without having that
30 full two-story house that Jason talked about. Craftsman’s great, I live in a Craftsman house. I
31 think that the east side of the building that you guys have come up with really looks great for the
32 neighborhood. I think it’s the left side of that house that looks like a ‘70’s addition that’s kind of
33 more the problem. If there was some way to take that Craftsman look on the east side and make
34 it kind of fit the entire house instead of having that kind of addition feel…do you what I’m
35 saying? It really does feel like an addition on the side there.
36 MR. CARSON: Could I just comment one thing? On that west side elevation, our
37 original proposal was to have another Craftsman gable on that side. But, because of the distance
Packet Pg. 407
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
14
1 to the property line, we are not allowed to be over eighteen feet with that eave line, and that’s
2 why you have that shed roof that we had to change to meet the requirements of…
3 MS. DUNN: There’s probably a creative way that you could still get that one single roof
4 element that Jason was talking about, and still meet the eighteen foot rule….is what I’m saying.
5 And, one way to do that would be maybe to not go with Craftsman, or to find a different style of
6 Craftsman so that you get that...I’ve heard a lot of talk about how there’s a lot of diversity, and
7 there is. It’s a beautiful, diverse area there. There is a preponderance of Tudor-style houses, but
8 of the variations, they are predominately one story, and the ones that aren’t have that kind of
9 hidden second story. And I think that’s critical, I think Jason did a fantastic job of showing that
10 in the pictures. There are some exceptions, definitely, in that neighborhood. Pretty much every
11 single exception is a new build, is either a popped roof or a brand new house. I bet in several of
12 those houses, they are beautiful on the inside, but when you walk down the street, they stick out
13 like a sore thumb. You see an old house that’s beautiful, it looks…it’s different but it’s got some
14 similar features, size, roof line, another similar house, and then there’s that huge one that had the
15 roof popped up. It stands out, I wish the…I believe that was the property owners that were here.
16 I wish they could hear…I know people who have moved into these houses that have been popped
17 like that and they start getting to know their neighbors and their neighbors say, you know, that
18 was such a cute little house before. They love their neighbors, the neighbors love them, but the
19 neighbors don’t love their house, and they have to live in that situation, in that scenario. I think
20 making a house that fits better with that one roof element will make all the difference. It could
21 be the same size, just get creative and find a way to make it fit with the style of that
22 neighborhood, because what you have now doesn’t.
23 MR. WHITTALL: Thank you mam, I appreciate you coming, I’ve talked to you a
24 number of times. I really think that that’s the wonderful thing that we should talk about amongst
25 us as neighbors. And, actually that wasn’t…my clients have been very patient through this
26 process and we’ve tried to thoughtfully consider a number of different options. So, my clients
27 are not present this evening, because I’ve found that unfortunately at times at some of these
28 reviews, they become more adversarial than what’s comfortable. Because I think that designing
29 should be creative and fun, and there should be a level of fluidity and ease. And, I’m really
30 certain that, Meg, if you and I set out to design your home in Old Town, that we would be able to
31 be sensitive as a design team about things that are really important to you. And I appreciate the
32 idea of trying to come up with a dominant type…but diverse character in the NCL…because
33 we’re not talking about the thousand block of Wayne, we’re talking about a vast area of Old
34 Town. Now, in order to make the argument…
35 MS. CARBERRY: I’m going to cut you off here, only because this is really the time for
36 public comment. A quick response is fine, but you’ll have plenty of an opportunity to make a
37 longer response, I just want to make sure we get through the public.
38 MR. WHITTALL: That’s fine, yes.
Packet Pg. 408
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
15
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thanks.
2 MS. DUNN: Just one last comment, people come in quite a few varieties, but we all have
3 the nose in the center of our face, and I feel like saying, well, if we stick a nose over here, we’re
4 really going with that diversity piece. It’s not…there are some things that we keep in common,
5 like we all have our nose in the center. Skin might be different, height might be different, hair
6 color is different, there can be quite a bit of diversity, but there’s some key elements that need to
7 be similar.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
9 MS. MARCI SILVERSTEIN: Hi, my name is Marci Silverstein and I’m here just as an
10 interested person in diversity. I’m an artist and I have painted and drawn a lot of the houses in
11 Old Town. And there is such an enormous variety between Shields and Peterson and Mulberry,
12 maybe Laporte, that if you tried to say that this house doesn’t fit in Old Town…no, it doesn’t fit
13 in the houses that were built fifty years ago in Old Town, but it sure does fit with a lot of those
14 houses that are going to come down and somebody’s going to pay money for that property to
15 build new houses in Old Town. You’ve built tall buildings with penthouses on the top in Old
16 Town, which certainly have absolutely nothing of the flavor of Old Town. They redid the
17 Lincoln Center so that now it doesn’t even look like it belongs in Old town anymore. There’s
18 just no reasonable way to say that a creatively designed home doesn’t fit, built today in 2013,
19 with a block of houses that were built, maybe if they were lucky, in 1940 and 50. It’s just
20 unconscionable to do that to a creative designer, and to a group of people, a couple, parents, that
21 want to more into a home that serves their family, and may not be able to be served in a little
22 house with a living room, and a dining room, and two bedrooms, and one bathroom, and no
23 basement, and a garage in the back. We have to be realistic and the City has to be realistic,
24 because you approved those tall buildings, you approved those hideous things over near the new
25 museum, those ugly buildings there, you approved those absolutely obnoxious things that are on
26 College behind the Dairy Queen. If you can approve that mass of ugly, and I mean ugly, you
27 certainly can approve a house that’s good looking and looks well and will serve the
28 neighborhood and will serve the people who want to live in it. Thank you.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anyone else?
30 MS. MICHELLE HAFELY: My name is Michelle Hafely, I’m a resident of the
31 neighborhood, and I have a few comments. First, Old Town does have a lot of diversity, but it
32 also has some unifying characteristics. One of which is, it is the last stock of smaller houses, and
33 it also has an historic character. And as homes are town down, or infill developments are built,
34 or homes are modified, it is certainly reasonable to ask that those homes continue to uphold that
35 overall historic feel of Old Town. And, as Meg said, I liked her analogy about the nose is almost
36 always in the middle on people’s faces, even though we are all diverse. I’d also like to make the
37 point that this subdivision has been an ever-moving target. This latest iteration comes in after
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
16
1 the subdivision was approved, predicated on certain conditions, one of which was that the
2 ultimate building meet character requirements, that it fit with the character of the neighborhood.
3 That was one of the requirements; one of the conditions granting the otherwise not allowed
4 subdivision. And, I would like to concur with the City staff that this latest iteration of this ever-
5 changing project is clearly non-compatible, and I would like to ask that you deny this major
6 amendment.
7 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
8 MS. BETH EDENS: Good evening, I’m Beth Edens, I’m at 718 West Olive. I’ve been in
9 Old Town as a resident for six years and Fort Collins for fifteen, and my home was built in 1905
10 with an addition in 1997. And, I want to say very clearly that I would find it really offensive if
11 today you would not have approved the previous owner’s decision to make a modernized home
12 that I chose to purchase because it allowed me, you know 2013 lifestyle. I think it’s absurd that
13 we try to say that we want to stay back into a home with a roof line…and a home, by the way,
14 that was on the market for months because today’s men couldn’t go up there and live. I’m a
15 realtor; I showed that home several times. I love the charm, I love the magic of it, but it didn’t fit
16 today’s lifestyle. I also think that this snapshot that you show…I live within five blocks of this
17 home; I walk almost every day by it. Not only that, but I drive that road several times a day, and
18 I just want to say, did you, when you were going out there taking those snapshots, did you go
19 two blocks to the east on the north side and see orange and brown 1970’s? And when I have
20 buyers in the car from out-of-state, I shrug and say, one of the great things about Old Town.
21 Some people say that’s energy efficient and its perfect, and God bless America, it’s America,
22 they have a right to build what they want. And this is Old Town, and one of the things that you
23 love about Old Town, and that I love living in Old Town, is that I have the right to have my style
24 of home; my door is not my nose. I can have a door to the right or to the left, there’s homes right
25 next to Beaver’s that there’s not a second floor, with nothing to walk out onto…come on, really.
26 Noses are not all noses.
27 Secondly, did you go just over Shields, just over on the corner of Scott and Magnolia and
28 see that home that was added on? Or how about on the corner when you guys allowed a
29 subdivision that I strongly opposed, that you put…that you let Mike Jensen subdivide the corner
30 of Jackson and Magnolia and you have homes there. Those homes are lovely homes; just
31 because they’re not my style of home doesn’t make them lovely or right. They put quality and
32 tastefulness and time and energy and a wonderful build, so that in a hundred years from now,
33 people will love that home. We are not stuck back forty, or fifty, or sixty years ago. I’ve been at
34 City Council…where people have gone against my neighbor adding on something and a woman
35 got up and said, well, in 1945, we didn’t have that. Well, that’s lovely, but I don’t want to live in
36 1945. So, I really, strongly…I find it egregious and alarming, I really do. I would love to drive
37 you around…I give you the tour I give to clients that come in. Because, just down the street on
38 Magnolia, go south on South Whitcomb, and there’s a home with far more roof lines than this
39 and it’s lovely, and it’s beautiful. So, please, I mean stop the absurdity and, with all due respect,
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
17
1 you know, it’s almost 2014, let’s rise up to the occasion and support people in our
2 neighborhoods. I would really encourage you…we don’t have an HOA, and I live in Old Town
3 because there’s not an HOA, and I think it’s tragic that you think that the East West
4 Neighborhood, or NCM, or NCL is equivalent to a cookie cutter. I have a sold a home that the
5 project is on and I sold that home in SideHill, I sold that home, you know, in different locations,
6 where everybody wanted uniformity. There’s five options, they got five. That is not Old Town.
7 Please extend your walk; it’s not a block, it’s a mile.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
9 MR. BRETT PAVEL: My name is Brett Pavel and I think I can say…I think I can
10 honestly say this year I’ve lived slightly more than half my life in Fort Collins, and that makes
11 me a semi-native. But I moved here from the Bay area and actually built a home in the Bay area
12 that was…in the wine country, that was architect-designed, it was a Craftsman, you know, style
13 home. As a young person, I was always very interested in Maybeck and Greene and Greene, and
14 I had all those books, you know, and never had the money to really build what I really wanted,
15 but I was always very passionate about it. And I think it’s very funny that we would be talking
16 about, you know, a Craftsman take on this because, at the time when the Greene brothers and
17 whatever were building…Pasadena and you know, Michigan, Berkeley, whatever they were
18 building their homes, the criticism they received was, it’s too simple. I mean, where are the
19 gables, where’s the…all the hanging, Victorian Queen Anne stuff, I mean people were shocked.
20 I mean, they were really the right…but it was the World War I expression of simplistic design,
21 and it was considered outrageous. And I also think about the 1982 when I moved here, that there
22 were all these signs on Mountain saying stop the trolley. Does anyone remember that? And I
23 came here from San Francisco and I thought, the trolley, let’s see, it’s volunteer, it’s not paid
24 with taxpayers money, it’s going to be only run on the weekends, and it’s going to be this
25 gorgeous thing…who could be against that? And can you find very many people against it now?
26 So, it’s kind of funny how times change and, frankly, I’m glad that I came here tonight
27 because I talked to Laura a little bit…Laura Olive a little bit about this, but I’m even more
28 excited about the design. I think that it will inspire the neighborhood. You know, in twenty or
29 thirty years, a lot of the homes that we’re seeing that were built fifty, sixty, seventy years in that
30 neighborhood, they’re going to have to…just physically they’re going to have to go through their
31 changes. This house that we’re talking about building now will be relatively new and it will be
32 fine thirty or forty years from now. What are those houses going to do? Well, they’re going to
33 look back…they’ll be looking back on this one, and they’ll be inspired by that. And so that’s
34 why we kind of have to open our horizons a little bit here, get out of our box a little bit. And
35 maybe it is a little more complex on the roof line, and it has a few things that are a little more
36 than the rest of the neighborhood, but you know, sometimes we just have to take a chance. We
37 have to go out there a little bit and look at it with historical perspective. So, I just wanted to say
38 that I think it’s a beautiful plan and I certainly approve it. I don’t…I don’t plan to profit in any
39 way from this, it’s just an aesthetic observation.
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
18
1 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
2 MR. JIM KRAMER: I’m Jim Kramer, I live next door to the development, and I
3 just…I’ll be very brief, I’ll say please approve this plan. They put a lot of work into it. I’ve only
4 seen the plan since this meeting has been scheduled. I had seen the…I’ve been to all the
5 meetings and seen the preliminary work. This is entirely…meets all the criteria that it’s meant to
6 meet and exceeds it, and this should be an example to the City process in reviewing plans. Not
7 just taking…not being overly strict and reading the process and seeing if there is an exact match
8 according to the book criterion, but taking a very well-done and sincere effort to heart and
9 approving it. Thank you.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
11 MR. SEAN DOUGHERTY: My name is Sean Dougherty; I am a realtor here in town. I
12 don’t have any stake in this property. I’ve been in Fort Collins fifteen years. I do not live in Old
13 Town now, but I plan to within the next five years. I’m here to look at it from a few different
14 standpoints. Pertaining to the planning, I sit on Larimer County Planning Commission and
15 compatibility is a very big thing, but it really sounds like the City’s stretching here. It feels very
16 much like someone in the City doesn’t like the new design and is really stretching to try and find
17 some way to say that it is not within the character. A few things, the approved plan was
18 submitted just to show the conceptual of a home that could be built there, to show the footprint,
19 to show the elevations. The design selected for now is substantially similar to that conceptual
20 home in size, footprint, and elevations. The design selected is differing in character from the
21 conceptual design, but not differing from the character of the neighborhood, or of Old Town
22 itself. The new design is in character with the diversity of Old Town. The conceptual plan does
23 not match what the City was striving for…and I’m going into this, and I know I shouldn’t open
24 this door, but I’m going to…East West Neighborhoods came about and one of the pieces of East
25 West was, City staff really didn’t want long expanses of walls that were unbroken up by jogs in
26 the wall. The conceptual design has that, the new design has quite a few breaks in the wall in
27 different areas so as not to have a plain vast expanse of siding. And I think that this…this design
28 that’s being proposed right here really encompasses that.
29 From the standpoint of being a realtor, I want to say Old Town is very desirable. It is the
30 neighborhood, if you will, in town that has always gone up in value, has always been desirable,
31 at least for the past thirty plus years, because of its diversity, because it’s not homogenous. I
32 hear it every day. I hear it from new homebuyers who cannot afford to live in Old Town right
33 now, gosh, I just can’t live in a cookie cutter home neighborhood. And Old Town is not that,
34 and I think that that is one of the big pieces of what makes Old Town so desirable.
35 Mr. Holland brought up that the staff wanted to know at the time what could be built, and
36 therefore that’s how this prototype came into being. They used a design then that was
37 compatible in roof line, size, mass and scale. This new design, I think, encompasses, aside from
Packet Pg. 412
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
19
1 roof lines, the size, mass and scale very well. The…you know, if the mass, bulk and scale is now
2 at odds with what the City wants, why was the concept approved, that’s a big question that I
3 have. Just to reference a comment made earlier, Old Town is not the last stock of smaller houses
4 in Fort Collins. We have the Alta Vista neighborhood, Andersonville, Buckingham; all have
5 much smaller homes and are older vintage as well. It just seems that Old Town is much more
6 desirable at this point to renovate, to subdivide, to build a new home. I do think Mr. Holland
7 proved the point of the applicant in the fact that there is quite a diversity of styles, and this is a
8 diverse style that really seems to fit with a lot of the older homes in Old Town, maybe not within
9 three or four houses here, but within Old Town as a whole. And, I’d like to ask for your
10 approval of this new design please for the home to be built at 1017 West Magnolia. Thank you.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you very much.
12 MS. LAURA OLIVE: Good evening, my name is Laura Olive. I’ve lived in Fort Collins
13 since 1974 and lived in Old Town for twenty years. I would ask that you support the approval of
14 this plan. You know, I think we’ve spent hours…they’ve spent hours and hours designing a
15 plan…site specific to that site. What I think has not been brought up is that particular site is
16 actually wider…sixty-three feet wide. Most of the other Old Town sites are narrower, they’re
17 forty feet. So, there’s a lot more space between homes. It’s hard to see that with the renderings
18 and so on, but that is the case. In any case, this house was sensibly designed, site specific to that
19 site, and to say that that one…we’re having to defend that over a cookie cutter house that was a
20 builder plan, built in SideHill, just seems incredulous to me, that we would be in that position.
21 We have an architecturally designed home versus a cookie cutter home and the City is defending
22 that as something that is what should be built there. So, the other thing that concerns me is that,
23 just generally, for property rights and that sort of thing, people can go out, buy a lot, spend
24 several thousands of dollars, maybe twenty thousand dollars designing a home, put a lot of
25 energy and time into in, and then find out that the house meets all the building criteria, meets the
26 Code, meets the Building Code and so on, only to find out that the City’s going to pull out a
27 trump card and say, but we don’t think it matches the character of the neighborhood. And to do
28 that in Old Town, where the character is so tremendously diverse…and what Beth said is
29 absolutely correct….you can widen the scope, go beyond the block or two and you’re going to
30 see everything from homes built in the 1880’s all the way to homes built, you know, in the last
31 five years, and they’re all diverse in terms of roof line, floor plan, mass, scale, the whole nine
32 yards. So, I think the character argument is flawed, and it’s subjective, and it’s almost
33 impossible to defend or define. I would ask that you approve this home to be built.
34 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you very much.
35 MS. OLIVE: Thank you.
36 MS. BARBARA HAYNES: My name is Barbara Haynes and I’ve lived here for thirty-
37 five years in one house only in Old Town…and I’m an accidental visitor to this session because I
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
20
1 really wanted to come about parking, and that was a lot earlier. When I was hearing the
2 presentation about, well, we went this far out, I went, oh, I thought this was my neighborhood
3 because I live at City Park. And, even though…what, three or four blocks over, it still is my
4 neighborhood, and I still care. And, I’ll just…everybody’s really said what I’ve already made
5 notes about so I won’t reiterate that, but I will tell you an anecdotal story about my father who
6 was here many times, thirty some years ago, and was here recently, and drove down College and
7 went…and my father is the…Southern gentleman, and he goes, oh my God Barbara, what are
8 they in a contest for, ugly? So, there you go. And I can’t imagine that the second house does not
9 meet the character of Old Town because it is very much what I would call the modern bungalow.
10 And, to have…to not have diversity in your roof construction…you’re going to create a wind
11 tunnel down that alley. You put every…that elevation down that alley, you’ll get a wind tunnel
12 going on. And that’s what that roof does, it will break up the wind and it will be,
13 environmentally, for that reason, much better construction than the other. And I don’t think the
14 people here in Fort Collins, as we watch these new buildings go up…I don’t see what they’re
15 doing here that they do in larger cities where the buildings have to be…they have to go back
16 every so many feet to not create wind tunnels. So, think about that, planning and zoning, when
17 we get bigger and taller buildings going on…so, that’s all I have to say.
18 MS. CARBERRY: Make sure you sign in, great, thank you. Anyone else? I think we’re
19 finished. Who gets to go first in the response? Applicant, okay, your turn.
20 MR. WHITTALL: Well, I think that this has been a pretty good example of…and,
21 actually in some ways, pretty content filled response, both in people that support and people that
22 object to the design. I think that by approving this plan, what you do is allow the process to
23 function as it functions best, and that is by following all of the standards of the Type I review,
24 which we’re here to…and all of the Building, Planning, and Zoning requirements. My building
25 permit for this project is ready to be picked up. It’s a week from being able to begin
26 construction.
27 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, I’m going to kind of focus…I’m just saying I’ve heard a lot,
28 building permit’s not relevant.
29 MR. WHITTALL: But the delay…but the continued delays brought upon by subjective
30 argument is relevant. You have ten days to be able to respond to this, and then the public again
31 has an additional appeals process. So, I would say that taking into consideration what you’ve
32 seen, the photographs and the public comment, that approving this without any conditions would
33 be greatly appreciated.
34 MS. CARBERRY: I appreciate it, anything else. Okay, City.
35 MR. HOLLAND: Well…a number of things I wanted to cover, but first of all I just
36 wanted to say that, you know, as far as the diversity of styles, it’s…we also have a diversity of
37 input. And one of the things that we are accountable to do is to make sure that the process goes
Packet Pg. 414
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
21
1 down the right path so that we can get public input. And, part of evaluating the project from
2 what they’re proposing today, versus what was the approved option, is so that we can…really
3 that comparison between the approved option and what is proposed today, is to determine
4 whether or not the changes can be processed as part of the building permit, or part of a minor
5 amendment, which is administrative, or goes back to a new hearing. And staff…Planning staff is
6 accountable for doing that comparison, so essentially the comparison between what was the
7 approved prototype that the applicant wanted to submit and what is proposed today is really
8 more to evaluate what the process moving forward is going to be. And we want to make sure
9 that we get public input if it’s warranted, and we do get a diverse range of public input. And I
10 think tonight is a good example of that diversity and I really appreciate the input.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Can I just ask a question, while you’re talking about it? We keep
12 going back to the plan that was approved as part of the last hearing on this. But how much, I
13 mean, as far as I understand it…the last hearing was a subdivision, correct? Am I referring to
14 the…I mean I heard this and I decided…
15 MR. HOLLAND: Correct, two lot subdivision.
16 MS. CARBERRY: Right, so we subdivided and it was within that subdivision that they
17 submitted, you know, the building prototype as you’re calling it, but how binding is this? I
18 mean, I don’t want you to give me a legal opinion; I’m a lawyer, but…
19 MR. HOLLAND: Well, that’s the next thing I wanted to explain so I can cover that.
20 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay.
21 MR. HOLLAND: Essentially, there are a diversity of styles, you know, there’s Craftsman
22 homes, there’s Tudor homes, there’s the style of the home that was proposed with the original
23 option, and they don’t have to build that. They don’t have to build the option that was approved.
24 It was really more of…to be representative of scale, mass, form…the things that are spoken to in
25 the Land Use Code that…the Land Use Code evaluates compatibility within an existing
26 neighborhood. And so that existing option is what they proposed, but as far as the architectural
27 style of it, we don’t have any say as far as what the architectural style…and I would agree that
28 there are many, many aspects of the style that are much better with the existing proposal. We
29 don’t have any issue with the proposal that’s being brought here tonight. It’s more the massing
30 and the scale…that’s what we’re evaluating based…we’re evaluating the proposed building
31 elevations based on the massing and the scale and the form, and how that is compatible with the
32 existing context of the neighborhood. And also, based on the existing context of the approved
33 option.
34 MS. CARBERRY: But here’s what…let me just stop you there, because the way I read
35 the Code is I…my job is to determine whether what’s being proposed here tonight fits. But I
36 guess my confusion is, why are you asking me to go back and look at something that was part of
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
22
1 a prior application? Because…in other words, when I approved that subdivision, the condition
2 of the subdivision was not, and you must build the house…just give me a second…and you must
3 build the house that you have proposed here. So, that is…my concern is the interrelation
4 between what I’m supposed to be doing tonight and what I did before. And, if I had thought that
5 the house had to be built exactly as it was in the subdivision approval, I would expect that that be
6 an express condition of the subdivision approval, in some way.
7 MR. HOLLAND: It does not have to be…
8 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
9 MR. HOLLAND: Built exactly like…
10 MS. CARBERRY: And I don’t mean exact, but, you know, I’m just struggling with that.
11 Because as far as I read the Code, I’m supposed to be applying this building and project
12 compatibility as it’s presented in this application to the surrounding neighborhood. Which I
13 think we have plenty of evidence on.
14 MR. HOLLAND: So the building elevations that were approved with the original PDP
15 are part of the approval, and we…staff evaluates any subsequent proposals as far as whether or
16 not they are a change in character in terms of comparing the proposed building elevations that
17 were approved with what’s being proposed now. So, really the comparison is to evaluate
18 whether there’s a change in character and whether or not that change of character can be
19 processed as a minor amendment or a major amendment.
20 MS. CARBERRY: Got it.
21 MR. HOLLAND: And we…staff made the determination that the change of character
22 was significant enough that they needed to go back to another hearing, as opposed to a major
23 amendment.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Right, okay. Okay…
25 MR. WHITTALL: Well, I mean, I guess the thing that I would say is that…the
26 prototype…and the whole definition of prototype is basically a working model to be improved
27 and changed. That’s ultimately the definition of what a prototype is. We keep making the
28 mistake of talking about what is a prototype and an approved plan. Those are two entirely
29 different things. If it were a prototype, which Josh [sic] keeps referring to, there would
30 be…Jason…pardon me. But, what I’m saying is, we made a migration somewhere, and I don’t
31 know when this occurred nor do the neighbors that were at former hearings, that went from a
32 concept or a prototype to an approved plan. And the note says, that got us here, is that if it varies
33 in character significantly from the set approved plan, that we had three options actually. We had
34 the ability to be able to meet with staff, which we tried to do, and have the Director make a
35 decision. We met with staff a number of times and the Director chose not to make a decision.
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
23
1 They also had an option of bring this before a type…a minor amendment, which would have
2 been, I believe, an administrative process. But they chose not to do that. They chose instead,
3 and this is where the politics of it come, in my estimation…
4 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, again, I can’t consider politics…we’re here tonight…we’re
5 here on a major amendment.
6 MR. WHITTALL: I’m saying it’s the deepest level that we could…this is the highest
7 level of review that could have…
8 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
9 MR. WHITTALL: And it’s done because of character between these two elements, that’s
10 why we’re here.
11 MS. CARBERRY: Right, and I understand that. And, I will say I went back and looked
12 at my decision on the subdivision and there is a finding in there that says that the design of the
13 new dwelling is compatible with the established architectural character and context of the area
14 with appropriate size, bulk, massing, scale, detail and articulation. So, I’m going back to what I
15 was asking before…I did actually look at that…I’ll call it a prototype for lack of a better term, I
16 did actually look at that. So…
17 MR. HOLLAND: It’s an option…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Right, and so anyway, I’m just going back to what I was asking you
19 before. I actually pulled up my prior decision just to look at it, I want you to know that I’m
20 looking at that now as part of the record, just because I wanted to know how much that was
21 involved in the prior decision, because that was really one of my questions. Okay, did you have
22 more, I’m sorry, I completely cut you off, go ahead.
23 MR. HOLLAND: I did, yes, thank you. So, but I just want to make it clear that, you
24 know, there’s no requirement to build the approved option. The...a proposal could be made to
25 build something else. And a proposal is being made to build something else. And this really,
26 again, it’s not about style, it is about form, mass and scale. And we would prefer that the
27 proposed building elevations be more similar in scale and style and mass and bulk to the
28 surrounding existing context. We would prefer that there be more balance or middle ground
29 between the existing character and the proposed building elevations.
30 We have had discussions with the applicants about some options that they could do to
31 make it more of a balance. The…essentially, fundamentally what our concern is, and why we
32 are recommending denial, is because the building is overly complex and the abundant massing
33 elements are not consistent with the surrounding context. When you look at the building
34 elevation…the street view sketch for example, you see six gables…six gable elements within the
35 building elevation. It almost looks like there’s a building behind a building when you look at the
Packet Pg. 417
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
24
1 building elevation that is shown with the…sketch. And this abundance of roof forms and
2 massing elements is…what we are looking for is something that is more in character with the
3 neighborhood. It does not have to be the same; it does not have to be the same as the existing
4 building…the existing approved option. But, we’re looking for something that is more of a
5 balance and we don’t feel that what is being proposed achieves that balance.
6 Just to respond to a few things from the applicant’s presentation…Mr. Whittall did
7 mention that there were numerous conversations with the City that…there were not numerous
8 conversations with the Planning Department…he did…I just want to clarify that there were
9 numerous conversations with the Zoning Department. Through the process leading up to the
10 first hearing, Mr. Whittall had one conversation with myself, and it involved a question about
11 the…where the lot line would fall between lot one and two. There were not numerous
12 conversations. We did not discuss the proposed building elevations that you see tonight…so I
13 just wanted to make that very clear, that we have a difference of opinion on that matter.
14 In terms of creativity, again, style is not mandated by Code. What we’re talking about is
15 constricted strictly to form, mass and scale, and we…do not believe that the six gable elements
16 and the complicated roof forms are compatible with the existing context of the neighborhood.
17 MR. WHITTALL: Kendra, one of the things that I would like to point out in regards to
18 this. If you look at the recorded document that had to do with the Type I review that you did
19 oversee previously, we had numerous conversations…and, you’re right, we don’t see eye to eye
20 on the amount of conversations or content, but my clients were required to sign on this mylar.
21 Dr. Greg and Kathy Obermann are signatures on this mylar, and the City required…not Aaron
22 Everett, or not Baron Walkman [sic] to sign on the mylar, which would be typical. They made
23 the buyer sign the mylar.
24 MR. HOLLAND: That’s not correct.
25 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
26 one another for a brief time.)
27 MS. CARBERRY: None of this is relevant. I want to focus back on what I have to
28 decide here tonight, which is whether or not it’s compatible. That’s all I’m deciding, I mean
29 honestly. Honestly, I don’t mean to be blunt, but I don’t care how many conversations you had, I
30 don’t care who signed what…you know, I have a limited job to do so I just want to make sure we
31 focus back on that.
32 Okay, so, can I just ask…the City, I understand…I’m not an architect, so, you know, this
33 whole idea that the massing is too big and that there’s too many gables or, you know, there’s too
34 many faces, whatever it is. I mean what is…what would you propose…I’m not asking you to
35 redesign this, I’m just saying, you know, the…like let’s leave that up for now, that’s a good
36 example. So, where would you come out…I mean is there some happy medium in between
Packet Pg. 418
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
25
1 there? I’m not trying to redesign your project, I’m not going to, because I don’t like when
2 people do that. I’m just asking the question of, how much is too much?
3 MR. HOLLAND: That’s something that staff would get together, and we would
4 hopefully have a good dialogue and discussion with the applicant, and work though that issue.
5 That’s not, in my personal opinion, not the level of detail that we need to be getting into tonight.
6 MS. CARBERRY: Well, I mean only because if I’m going to decide whether this is
7 compatible with the neighborhood, and whether or not mass and all of these things are
8 inconsistent, I guess I…and I’m not…I just need to understand what specifically it is you object
9 to. You know, is it…in other words, if it were…I see however many roof lines there. If there
10 were less roof lines would that be more compatible? I’m just trying to get a better
11 understanding.
12 MR. HOLLAND: Yes, yes.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay. And is it, you know…
14 MR. HOLLAND: If the overall forms were simpler, if they were less secondary elements
15 or, you know, if there are ways to make the overall forms similar…or simpler. Those are some
16 possibilities.
17 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, again, I’m not asking anybody to redesign anything; I’m just
18 trying to get a better idea of what it is that the City is objecting to here so that I understand where
19 you’re coming from. And is it, you know, is the upstairs balcony and issue? Is the front porch
20 an issue? Or is it because those are added on to something that’s already rather complex that’s
21 the issue?
22 MR. HOLLAND: Primarily it’s the second story elements.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, that helps. Okay, okay, sorry, go ahead.
24 MR. CARSON: So, I mean we keep talking about scale and massing and all those things,
25 and you mentioned six gables. If you looked at this house in a perspective, you would get one,
26 two, three, four gables. So, four gables is okay, but six gables is not okay. So, I mean, you’re
27 taking on the role of designing a clients’ home, Jason, as a Planning staff. You guys…that’s
28 what I’m hearing right now. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry…I just, I mean, you know, it’s
29 completely subjective.
30 MS. CARBERRY: I understand…
31 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
32 one another for a brief time.)
33
Packet Pg. 419
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
26
1 MR. CARSON: It’s completely subjective. We have a client that we’ve went through a
2 very detailed process, and they have a style that they’re looking for and it doesn’t match what is
3 approved. They don’t like that house, they like this house.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Well, I mean, you know, the obvious question would be, why did they
5 buy that house? I’m just being facetious. What I’m saying is, I guess, you know, this…that is
6 what was approved basically. So how do we…
7 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
8 one another for a brief time.)
9 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, okay, everyone, again I’m asking questions.
10 MR. CARSON: Nothing more than a prototype so they…you know…they understood
11 that as long as it fit within the building and zoning guidelines, which this does, then they could
12 build the house they wanted.
13 MS. CARBERRY: I understand, but you have to admit that these two designs are very
14 different.
15 MR. CARSON: In style, in character, yes they are. But in massing, I mean if you look at
16 the overall height of this ridgeline…and this ridgeline is about forty feet and it’s probably
17 twenty-eight foot high, where this has one ridgeline that’s about thirteen or fourteen feet that’s
18 the same height. So this, in scale and massing, actually steps down and down and down in
19 terraces to the alley and to the street, where this is, you know, one long horizontal elevation.
20 And again, as far as gables, like I said, okay this has three gables on the front; this has three
21 gables on the front. If you turn to the side, you see six gables on this, you would see four gables
22 on that, but then this has a hip, and then it has a hip there, so there’s six or seven roof forms that
23 you would see at the same perspective. These just all happen to be gables.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
25 MR. WHITTALL: I think that it does though…beg the question, if you’re clients were
26 going to buy a piece of property, why on earth would they buy this with this approved plan?
27 Well, if my clients thought that they had to build that approved plan, they would have hired
28 Jamestown to build the plan for God’s sake. They would have hired Jamestown to build the plan
29 and probably do it in a really cost-effective manner.
30 MS. CARBERRY: I understand.
31 MR. WHITTALL: Instead, they hired a design team, an architect, design, builder,
32 engineer, to be site-specific. Again, this is…and the implication of this is that, if denied tonight,
33 if I went back to my clients…if you were my client, and you were to make a…if the Hearing
34 Officer were to make a decision to deny this house, but still say it’s okay to build the
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
27
1 prototype…but you don’t have to build the prototype but try again. So then I go and I say, okay,
2 client, I need an additional money and I’m going to try again, with no certain outcome because
3 we could pull the card again, and Jason and Cameron Gloss could say, oh, that doesn’t really fit
4 the character. Really, what we’ve found out from the hearing is the character was much more
5 kind of Victorian. So, it’s a moving target that the City’s asking me…us to hit. And, it raises to
6 the bar a job that is far too great for us to design with subjectivity as the final word. You have
7 become the architectural review committee. You don’t know how powerful you are tonight.
8 And that is not a laughable thing, that is a damn serious thing because…
9 (**Secretary’s note: There were several unidentified parties speaking unintelligibly over
10 one another for a brief time.)
11 MR. WHITTALL: I want to compassionately appeal to you.
12 MS. CARBERRY: I understand what you’re saying.
13 MR. WHITTALL: Unfortunately, five years ago…I was building houses here and I saw
14 this being to percolate, I started a website that basically said, if we continue down this path, what
15 we’ll have is we will have a homeowner’s association with the Planning staff. But worse in
16 some ways yet is the design and the character lies in your decision. If you make a decision that
17 says, I believe that this varies too much in character, bulk and mass from the approved plan, but
18 we don’t have any arbitrary…it’s all subjective, so we don’t know where to go from that. In
19 times of uncertainty, people do nothing.
20 MS. CARBERRY: And I will say, I mean…I’ll be honest with you, a lot of zoning and
21 planning is subjective, that’s the nature of it. So, you know, I mean that is the nature of the
22 business that you’re in and I understand that. And, you know, that’s part of my job is to
23 determine these kinds of things.
24 MR. WHITTALL: But municipalities need to have objective milestones and bases.
25 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
26 MR. WHITTALL: And that’s the thing that’s problematic with this is that we meet all of
27 the objective things that are set forth. What we don’t, is we don’t fit the thing…the warm fuzzy
28 if you will. You know, we won’t solve this problem here. But, if in fact you rule to deny this
29 project, we set precedent for every project going forward to know that Planning staff…I can
30 submit a building plan on any lot in this City and Jason and Ted has the ability…the Planning
31 staff have the ability to play the character trump card and end up here and then you become the
32 deciding factor. I don’t think that’s the role of a planning and zoning.
33 MS. CARBERRY: Well, you know, again, Planning staff is…they have to apply the
34 Code as it’s written, they don’t write the Code. City Council is responsible for the Code. The
35 Code is subjective, so you know, I don’t know that anybody…
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
28
1 MR. WHITTALL: No, the Code is pretty objective.
2 MS. CARBERRY: Well, no, I’m reading this portion of the Code which I’m being asked
3 to apply tonight, and it’s rather subjective, you know, and so the City Council is responsible for
4 inserting…I’m not blaming them…for inserting that level of subjectivity, and then Planning
5 staff, their job is to interpret that and apply it. So, you know, everybody…I think everybody
6 does the best that they can, and that the subjective nature of the Code, for better or for worse,
7 that’s up to the elected officials to determine how much subjectivity they want in their Code. So,
8 you know, I mean I think if there’s an issue with that, then you go to City Council and say, take
9 the subjectivity out of the Code, we don’t like it. So anyway…sorry, go ahead.
10 MR. HOLLAND: Well, you know, I would just add that I do agree it is subjective. But,
11 the criteria and the Code Section, Building and Project Compatibility, and the components of that
12 are fairly well defined and they’re fairly narrow. And it is defined…it is required to be defined
13 by the neighborhood context, and it’s…but it is subjective and that’s all I have to add.
14 MS. CARBERRY: I agree, there is a lot of subjectivity in this…in what we’re discussing
15 here tonight. A lot of the Land Use Code isn’t subjective, this is subjective. So, okay. Well,
16 anything else? Well, I appreciate everyone’s hard work on this; I appreciate all of your
17 testimony. It’s very helpful to me, especially in these types of situations where there is a lot of
18 subjectivity, so thank you for coming and I will issue a decision within ten working days. I’ll do
19 my best, I can’t make any promises. Thank you.
Packet Pg. 422
Attachment12.6: Verbatim Transcript (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
ATTACHMENT 7
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
February 4, 2014
Packet Pg. 423
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
1
Stoner Subdivision Appeal:
New single
family home
at 1017 W.
Magnolia
Street.
Lot 1 Lot 2
W. Magnolia St.
Wayne St.
Packet Pg. 424
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
2
Assertions of Appeal:
The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code by approving the project for:
• Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project
Compatibility
• Section 4.7 (A) Purpose - Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District –
(N-C-L)
Packet Pg. 425
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
3
Original Building Elevations
North
East
West
South
Packet Pg. 426
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
4
Approved Amended Building Elevations
North
East
West
South
Packet Pg. 427
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
5
Summary of Assertions in the Appeal:
• The amended design is “inconsistent with the
character of nearby homes”
• “Agree that the architecture of the homes in the
surrounding area varies greatly, but believe there
is a predominant architectural feature …that is
shared amongst the homes…”
• State the “photographs presented …provide
visual evidence that the predominant feature …is
simple, geometric roof lines…”
• As such, “the proposed building is incompatible to
the neighborhood context…”
Packet Pg. 428
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
6
Provided with Notice of Appeal:
Packet Pg. 429
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
7
Summary of Hearing Officer Findings:
• …there is nothing in the record to indicate that
the quality of the home is suspect …and that it
complies with Section 3.5.1”
• ..both the applicant and the city presented
testimony and photographs demonstrating that
the architecture varies greatly…
• Regarding Section 4.7 (A)..undisputed at the
hearing that the amended single family home is
in compliance with all applicable size and height
restrictions for the N-C-L district.”
Packet Pg. 430
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
8
Assertions of Appeal:
The Hearing Officer failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Land Use Code by approving the
project for:
• Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project
Compatibility
• Section 4.7 (A) Purpose - Neighborhood
Conservation, Low Density District –
(N-C-L)
Packet Pg. 431
Attachment12.7: Staff powerpoint presentation to Council, February 4, 2014 (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA
!
"
# $
!
"#
$"#%&&
'"%
%
&'()*))
#
+
,
(!)
()
(!)
()
(!)
*
+
),$
-
.
+
-
'&' #' "00 %- & %- &/ ..
.!. 001
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment12.5: Materials Presented at Hearing (1649 : Appeal of the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment, MJA 130045)
cross-sectional air flow area of 12 square inches (0.0078 m
2
) may be laid on top of the
sub-grade. The mat shall be constructed of a matrix that allows for the movement of air
through it and be capable of supporting the concrete placed upon it. The matrix shall be
covered by approved filter material on all four sides to prevent dirt or concrete from
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
factor.”
(73) Section N1102.2 Specific insulation requirements is hereby amended by adding a
second paragraph to read as follows:
“N1102.2 (R402.2.13) Specific insulation requirements (Mandatory). In addition to the
requirements of Section N1102.1, insulation shall meet the specific requirements of
Sections N1102.2.1 through N1102.2.12. All insulation shall be installed to meet
Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) Grade I standard with six-sided
encapsulation.
Exceptions: RESNET Grade II is acceptable for:
1. cavity insulation in exterior walls that include continuous rigid insulating
sheathing and/or insulated siding with a minimum R-5 value; and
2. rim joist.”
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
R-
VALUE
e
BASEMENTc
WALL
R-VALUE
SLABd
R-
VALUE
&
DEPTH
CRAWLc
SPACE
WALL
R-
VALUE
Non-Electric
heat
0.32 0.55 NR 49 20 or
13 + 5
13/17 30 10/13h
15/19i
10,2
ft
15/19
Electric heat
0.30 0.55 NR 49 20+5 15/19 30 15/19 10,4 15/19
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
Damming
Frost line
depth
Termite
Decay
c
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment8.4: Ordinance No. 020, 2014 (IRC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
ft
15/19
For SI: 1 foot = 304.8mm
a. R-values are minimums. U-factors and SHGC are maximums. R-19 batts compressed into a nominal 2x6 framing
cavity such that the R-value is reduced by R-1 or more shall be marked with the compressed batt R-value in addition to
the full thickness R-value.
b. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration.
c. “15/19” means R-15 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall or R-19 cavity insulation at
the interior of the foundation wall. “15/19” shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of
the foundation wall plus R-5 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall. “10/13” means R-
10 continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the foundation wall or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the
foundation wall.
d. R-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs.
e. Insulation shall fill the framing cavity, R-19 minimum.
f. First value is cavity insulation, second is insulated sheathing or siding, so “20+5” means R-20 cavity insulation plus R-
5 insulated sheathing. If structural sheathing covers 25 percent or less of the exterior, insulating sheathing is not
required where structural sheathing is used. If structural sheathing covers more than 25 percent of the exterior,
structural sheathing shall be supplemented with insulated sheathing of at least R-2.
g The second R-value applies when more than half the insulation is on the interior of the mass wall.
h. All rim joists and adjoining plates shall be air-sealed and insulated using spray foam insulation to R-15 minimum.
i. All rim joists and adjoining plates shall be air-sealed”
(33) TABLE R402.1.3 Equivalent U-Factors is hereby amended to read as follows:
“TABLE R402.1.3
EQUIVALENT U-FACTORS
a
HEATING
SYSTEM
TYPE
FENESTRATION
U-FACTOR
SKYLIGHT
U-FACTOR
CEILING
R-
VALUE
FRAME
WALL
U-
FACTOR
MASS
WALL
U-
FACTORb
FLOOR
U-
FACTOR
BASEMENT
WALL
U-
FACTOR
CRAWL
SPACE
WALL
U-
FACTOR
Nonelectric 0.32 0.55 0.026 0.057 0.082 0.033 0.059 0.055
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment8.3: Ordinance No. 019, 2014 (IECC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
44
48
53
57
Hospitals and clinics
Private rooms
39
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment8.2: Ordinance No. 018, 2014 (IBC) (1660 : SR 018-022 I-Codes)
2015 1.8 0.8 2.7 --- 3.8 3.8
2016 2.4 3.2 5.6 --- 5.5 5.5
2017 4.9 3.3 8.1 0.2 5.5 5.7
2018 5.5 3.4 5.3 3.4 + 5.6 = 9.0
2019 5.5 3.5 5.4 3.5 + 5.7 = 9.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment1.2: January 14, 2014 (1659 : Minutes 1/7/14 and 1/14/14)