HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/01/2014 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAgenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 1, 2014
City Council
STAFF
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 20 and June 3, 2014 Regular Council Meetings and the
June 10, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve minutes from the May 20 and June 3, 2014 Regular Council Meetings
and the June 10, 2014 Adjourned Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. May 20, 2014 (PDF)
2. June 3, 2014 (PDF)
3. June 10, 2014 (PDF)
212
May 20, 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, May 20, 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
Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry withdrew Item No. 20, Resolution 2014-039 Approving the Stipulated
Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and Bella Vira Town Homes, Inc to a future
date and noted Item No. 23, Items Relating to the Spring Competitive Process, will include a
public hearing.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the use of information technology with respect
to the electric utility grid and stated the Smart Meter program could be more beneficial.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, announced community events, offered congratulations to
college and high school graduates, and commended the MAX project. Additionally, he opposed
metered parking in the downtown area.
David Hamm, 3324 Hickock Drive, commended the Council and the way the City is managed.
He opposed CSU’s on-campus stadium.
Paul Gorecki, 106 Briarwood Road, stated the design of MAX is inefficient, more attention
needs to be paid to low-income housing and homeless individuals need to be sheltered on
exceptionally cold nights.
Mike Knowles, 623 Monte Vista, requested that the City discontinue the use of the addition of a
permitted use (APU) in single-family residential zones.
Michelle Haefele, 623 Monte Vista, requested that the City discontinue the use of the addition of
a permitted use in single-family residential zones.
May 20, 2014
213
Sara Liley, Fort Collins resident, requested an increase in the number of food vendors to twelve
for rallies or large events, as part of Item No. 2, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2014,
Amending Chapter 15, Article XIV of the City Code Regarding Outdoor Vendors.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Cunniff suggested an examination of the APU in single-family residential zones.
City Manager Atteberry replied a written memo will be forthcoming.
Councilmember Overbeck thanked Mr. Gorecki for speaking and requested the City Manager
address his concerns.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a response to the food truck topic. Jessica Ping-Small,
Revenue and Project Manager, replied staff’s recommendation to limit the number of food
vendors at rallies to eight is because the impacts of these types of events have not been fully
vetted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2014, Authorizing the Transfer of $2,000,000 in
Existing Capital Appropriations from the Northwest Trunk Sewer Expansion Wastewater
Capital Project to a New Capital Project for the Construction of a Sewer Interceptor on
North Shields Street.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, transfers funds
previously appropriated for a northwest trunk sewer extension to be used for the
construction of a similar project on North Shields Street. The proposed project will serve a
similar purpose of environmental stewardship by removing a significant number of
properties from individual septic systems and leach fields.
Larimer County is currently planning on the reconstruction of Shields Street north of the
Poudre River in 2015 to coincide with the bridge replacement project. Staff has met with
the County Engineering department and will be able to coordinate the two projects to
minimize the length of time the area would be impacted by construction, if the two projects
were to be done independently.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 065, 2014, Amending Chapter 15, Article XIV of the
City Code Regarding Outdoor Vendors.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, amends Chapter 15
of the City Code regarding Outdoor Vendors with two minor amendments to further support
the outdoor vending community. In July 2012, City Council adopted new outdoor vendor
regulations based on a comprehensive study completed by staff. Since the inception of the
new regulations, staff has been monitoring the activity and working with the mobile vending
community to address opportunities for improvement to the Code. Staff is recommending
two updates to address the opportunities.
May 20, 2014
214
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2014, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of
the City Code Pertaining to Appeals Procedure.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading May 6, 2014, clarifies and
incorporates process improvements relating to the procedure for the hearing of appeals by
City Council. Staff contacted members of the public who expressed concerns about the
current process and provided them with copies of the proposed changes. No suggested
changes were received. Staff also met with the Board of Realtors legislative committee to
review the proposed changes. Comments from the committee were focused more on the
ease in which an appeal can be filed rather than the specific changes proposed in this
Ordinance.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2014, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26
of the City Code Pertaining to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges Associated with the
Provision of Net-Metered Service.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, allows for certain
operational efficiencies to be realized by Utilities for the residential net-metering program
without negatively impacting the financial benefits of the program for participants. The
current accounting process for net-metering customers is manually-intensive. With the
deployment of the advanced metering infrastructure for all residential customers, it is now
possible to provide these customers with monthly information on their energy production
and to implement an automated monthly settlement process rather than the current annually
settled process. In order to ensure that no additional financial burden is placed on existing
net-metering customers, it is necessary to make the current implicit credit for distribution
facilities charges explicit in the City Code through the current rate Ordinance being
presented.
5. Items Relating to Common Private Service Lines for Water and Wastewater Service.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2014, Amending Article III of Chapter 26 of the
City Code to Allow Common Private Service Lines for Water Service in Certain
Circumstances.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2014, Amending Article IV of Chapter 26 of the
City Code to Allow Common Private Service Lines for Wastewater Service in Certain
Circumstances.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, amend Chapter
26 of the City Code to revise the requirements for how separate water and sewer services are
provided to individual properties. The City Code currently requires each individual single
family dwelling to connect directly to a City water or sewer main. Current high density
development practices can create situations of multiple long service lines underground
congesting the provided easements through the entire green space of a property and
impacting the ability to plant trees or install other surface features. Ordinance No. 069, 2014,
allows for a “Common Private Water Service Line” that is owned and maintained by a
May 20, 2014
215
homeowner’s association, or other legal entity, and serve up to 6 individual properties.
Ordinance No. 070, 2014, allows for a “Common Private Wastewater Service Line” that is
owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association, or other legal entity, and serve up to 6
individual properties.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2014, Vacating Portions of Ziegler Road as
Dedicated in Book R at Page 118 of the Larimer County Records.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, vacates the
portions of Ziegler Road right-of-way that are no longer necessary or desirable to retain for
public street purposes. The portions to be vacated are those portions that were dedicated in
1882 and not rededicated with the Fossil Lake PUD First Filing plat and are portions of
right-of-way that are not needed for the existing street system.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2014 Vacating Right-of-Way as Dedicated on the
Final Plats of Waterfield P.U.D. First Filing and Waterfield P.U.D. Second Filing.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, vacates portions of
right-of-way within Waterfield PUD First and Second Filings that are no longer necessary or
desirable to retain for street purposes. These locations are being replatted as Waterfield
Third Filing and proposing new rights-of-way to be dedicated, which was approved through
an Administrative Hearing on February 11, 2014.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund to Fund the Fort Collins West Nile Virus Management Program for the 2014
Season.
Ordinance No. 73,2014, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, changes the
funding sources for the West Nile Virus Management Program. The Ordinance appropriates
$131,492 in General Fund reserves and removes all Natural Areas Fund dollars allocated to
the West Nile Virus Management Program. This action will not reduce the overall program
budget. The fund allocation change was requested to better align the program’s public health
purpose and citywide impact with the source of operating dollars.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural
Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the
2014 Adopted City Budget.
The purpose of this item is approving an Appropriation Ordinance appropriating $6,221,325
from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund. Nearly 80% of the funds will be used
for land conservation.
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Capital Projects Fund for the North College Improvements - Conifer to Willox Project
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the North College Improvements -
Vine to Conifer Project Into the North College Improvements - Conifer to Willox Project.
May 20, 2014
216
The purpose of this item is to appropriate federal grant funds into the Capital Project Fund
for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer to Willox. City Council appropriated
the final piece of funding necessary for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer to
Willox through budget revision actions at the end of 2013. Since that time, City staff
successfully secured additional funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) via their Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP)
program.
This Ordinance completes the final project budget with appropriations of (1) New RAMP
funding, (2) Previously secured fiscal year 2015 federal grant funding, and (3) Savings from
the recently completed North College Improvements -- Vine to Conifer project. These new
funding amounts are summarized as follows:
RAMP funding: $3,894,000
Final Savings from N. College Improvements - Vine to Conifer project: $1,600,000
Fiscal year 2015 Federal Grant Funds: $1,508,000.
Previous budget estimations for the project included $1,000,000 in state resurfacing funds
that are now included in the RAMP funds, and estimated $1,300,000 in savings from the
previous project. The final total project budget has now been revised from $11,800,000 to
$12,000,000. The net result of these actions is that $2.9 million of previously appropriated
City funds is no longer necessary to complete the North College project.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2014 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming
Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $195,981, of which $83,619 is for 2014 Cultural
Development and Programming Activities (Fort Fund), $8,977 is for 2014 Tourism
Programming (Fort Fund), and $103,385 is for 2014 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors
Bureau (CVB) activities from Unanticipated Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year
Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves.
Lodging Taxes for 2013 were estimated at $955,000 with actual Lodging Tax revenues
collected equaled $1,102,693 ($147,693 over estimate).
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2014, Amending Chapter 3 of The City Code to Allow
Spirituous Liquor Tastings and to Increase the Number of Days Tastings are Permitted.
The purpose of this item is to amend the City Code to allow for spirituous (liquor) tastings,
similar to what is currently allowed for beer and wine. This amendment will also extend the
number of days tastings are permitted up to the maximum 104 tasting events per year.
May 20, 2014
217
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2014, Designating the Landblom Property, 116 North
Pearl Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Kenneth and Michele Christensen, are initiating this request for
Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Landblom Property at 116 North Pearl Street.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to
CCF Investments, LLC in Exchange for a New Park Site.
The purpose of this item is to convey property by Quit Claim Deed to CCF Investments,
LLC. The City Property to be conveyed is near East Vine Drive and Turnberry and is
located in Waterfield PUD Second Filing. This land was the location of a park in Waterfield
Second Filing. The location of the park is moving with the Third Filing of Waterfield. The
current park site will be conveyed to the developer, CCF Investments, LLC by Quit Claim
Deed.
15. Resolution 2014-034 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the
Purchase of Sealed-Design, Medium Voltage Electric Circuit Switches From S&C Electric
Company.
The purpose of the item is to request an exception to the normal competitive bid process for
the purchase of sealed-design, medium voltage electric circuit switches, as the alternative is
contrary to the City’s interests. To maintain the reliability and effectiveness of the electric
distribution system as it expands to support citizen-customers, a number of projects have
been identified that will require the installation of medium voltage, pad-mounted switches.
In addition to the need to support system expansion, there are a number of projects where
staff must use sealed-design switches for areas where there is potential for flood waters to
create reliability and safety problems for air-insulated switches. The new Woodward
headquarters and manufacturing site is one of the sites that will require reliable, sealed-
design switches.
16. Resolution 2014-035 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Grant Disbursements.
The purpose of this item is to adopt the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board to
disburse Fort Fund grants to community events from the Cultural Development and
Programming and Tourism Programming Accounts.
17. Resolution 2014-036 Declaring the City Council's Commitment to and Support for
Participation by the City in the Creative District Certification Program.
The purpose of this item is to request formal support through a City Council Resolution of
an application for Creative District Candidacy for a proposed Downtown Fort Collins
Creative District. The Resolution, if approved, will be submitted with an application for
Creative District Candidacy to Colorado Creative Industries, a division of the Colorado
Office of Economic Development and International Trade. The Candidacy process is a two-
year incubation style program.
May 20, 2014
218
18. Resolution 2014-037 Endorsing and Supporting Colorado State University's Participation in
the National EcoCAR2 Competition.
The purpose of this resolution is to support Colorado State University’s participation in the
national EcoCAR2 competition by adopting a resolution expressing City endorsement of
their competition and supporting the program.
The Mechanical Engineering Department at Colorado State University is participating in the
EcoCAR2 national competition, an advanced vehicle technology competition sponsored by
the US Department of Energy, General Motors and dozens of industrial sponsors. The goal
is to develop an engineering workforce to solve the product development and design
challenges that every part of the U.S. technology sector will need to overcome in the coming
years. EcoCAR2 challenges fifteen undergraduate programs across the country to design,
develop, and test a high technology, high efficiency hybrid electric vehicle. More than 100
CSU students have worked to convert Chevrolet’s new 2013 Malibu into a mean green
hydrogen powered plug-in hybrid electric car. On June 12, they will be attending a
competition Ride and Drive event in Washington, D.C.
19. Resolution 2014-038 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the
March 13, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board’s Decision Regarding the Bella Vira Filing 2
Major Amendment and Replat for the project known as the Bella Vira, Filing 2, Final
Development Plan.
The purpose of this item is to have Council adopt by resolution findings of fact in support of
its decision on the appeal.
On March 21, 2014 an appeal was filed concerning the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
decision regarding a proposed Major Amendment and Replat to the Bella Vira, Phase 2,
Final Development Plan (the FDP). An Amended Appeal was received on March 28, 2014.
On May 6, 2014, City Council voted 7-0 on the motion that the Planning and Zoning Board
conducted a fair hearing in approving the FDP major amendment and replat, the Planning
and Zoning Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code, and that accordingly, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board is upheld.
20. Resolution 2014-039 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between
the City and Bella Vira Town Homes, Inc. (Item Postponed Indefinitely)
The purpose of this item is to formalize the determination of vested rights. Bella Vira Town
Homes Incorporated (the Developer) is the developer of the Bella Vira Subdivision, Filing
Number 2, a 3.471 acre development, and has been working diligently pursuing the
development of the project. An issue has arisen as to a potentially late filing of an
application for an extension which was due to a City clerical error. Accordingly, the
Developer has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights under Division 2.13
of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the City Manager and City Attorney agree that the
application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed Resolution
would formalize the determination of vested rights.
May 20, 2014
219
***END CONSENT***
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item Nos. 3 and 4, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 066, 2014, Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code
Pertaining to Appeals Procedure and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2014, Making
Certain Amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining to Electric Rates, Fees and
Charges Associated with the Provision of Net-Metered Service.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat,
Campana, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Kevin Gertig, Interim Utilities Executive Director, provided an update on the water line
replacement project in the Old Town area and along College Avenue.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Cunniff reported on the anniversary event at Soapstone Prairie.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on the signing of an endangered species act by Governor
Hickenlooper.
Ordinance No. 068, 2014,
Clarifying Ordinance No. 028, 2014, Relating to
Wastewater Rates, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014 by a vote of 6-0 (Campana recused)
clarifies the City Council’s intent in adopting Ordinance No. 028, 2014, in order to ensure there
is no confusion regarding the correct wastewater rates for 2014. Ordinance No. 150, 2013
established new wastewater rates for all customers to be effective January 1, 2014. These rates
were implemented as intended for all bills on or after January 1, 2014. Ordinance No. 028
added language to certain sections of the City Code regarding how wastewater rates are
charged during construction of multi-family residential developments. Because there is potential
for confusion and misrepresentation of the City Council’s intent from the way Ordinance No.
028, 2014, as finally published, represented Section 26-280 of the City Code, this Ordinance is
intended to clarify the City Council’s intent and ensure correct codification of the 2014
wastewater rates.”
May 20, 2014
220
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 068, 2014, on Second Reading. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Overbeck, Cunniff and
Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2014-040
Adopting the Lincoln Corridor Plan as an Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of the City, Adopted as Amended
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the Lincoln Corridor Plan as an element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Through an extensive community engagement process, the Plan was
prepared to:
1. Develop a vision and preliminary long-term multi-modal roadway design for Lincoln
Avenue;
2. Identify related neighborhood improvement projects in the study area; and
3. Identify potential funding options, project phasing, and specific strategies and actions to
implement the Plan.
The Lincoln Corridor Plan has been refined to reflect recent feedback from Council, including
the proposed phasing option that would construct the roadway framework first and then add
enhancements later, as funding allows.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Lincoln Corridor is unique. The corridor is growing and already reflects an eclectic mix of
existing uses-historic neighborhoods, retail, industrial, and natural areas-as well as a
developing technology campus. In addition, this portion of Lincoln Avenue lacks basic
infrastructure in many places and needs to be brought up to current City standards. Years ago
Lincoln Avenue was a main entrance to downtown, and over the years it has declined in
prominence.
City Plan (2011) identified the Lincoln Corridor as an important project and a gateway for the
downtown and East Mulberry corridor area. In addition, City Plan recognized the potential for
Lincoln to become a “Great Green Street” by developing a new road design to address context-
sensitive solutions to connect with Downtown and surrounding areas. The Lincoln corridor is
also recognized as a priority gateway in the Downtown Plan (1989) and the adopted Streetscape
Standards which indicate where a standard arterial streetscape approach should apply and
May 20, 2014
221
where other corridor segments and gateway intersections warrant their own tailored and more
enhanced approach to streetscape design and management.
Based on this guidance, the new design for Lincoln Avenue in the Lincoln Corridor Plan (“the
Plan”) seeks to provide an enhanced level of amenities and a design that restores its importance
as a primary entry to the heart of the City as well as providing an important connection from
Downtown to the east and northeast.
The public process to develop the Plan was comprehensive. As drafted, the Plan represents an
attempt to balance the competing interests of various users as well as meet the intent of the
City’s Transportation Master Plan and other standards. The planning process was initiated in
March 2013 and was led by a team of FC Moves and Planning staff, with support from a multi-
departmental Technical Advisory Committee and consultants.
The Lincoln Corridor Plan also identifies a priority list of related neighborhood improvements
that address existing deficiencies and that celebrate and enhance the surrounding
neighborhoods. The Plan provides a guiding framework for the area and is flexible to meet
changing conditions and circumstances. Initial project costs and potential phasing and funding
have been identified in this framework plan and will be further refined during the future Final
Design process. The draft Plan and appendices are provided in Attachments 1 and 2.
The Plan is divided into three phases:
Phase I - Vision (April - July 2013)
Phase II - Corridor Design Alternatives (August - October 2013)
Phase III - Preferred Alternative/Implementation Planning (November 2013 - May 2014)
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The preliminary cost estimate for the Lincoln Preferred Alternative design is a planning-level
cost estimate that will be further refined when the project advances to Final Design. The current
project cost estimate is broken down into two parts: $14.8 million for the complete roadway and
$4.5 million for a new bridge. The total preliminary estimated cost of the Lincoln Avenue
improvements is $19.3 million, including Final Design, construction, and a planning-level
contingency of 30%.
The Lincoln project cost estimate reflects a conservatively high amount for a gateway level
design and is in line with other recent enhanced roadway projects (e.g., North College, Linden
Streetscape Improvements, which ranged from $10.6 million to $21 million per mile). The
available funding sources do not meet the full needs of the project and highlight a discrepancy
between the desire for an enhanced street and the resources actually available for transportation
projects. The Lincoln Corridor Plan presents a design framework with the flexibility for
refinement, scalability, and phasing during the Final Design process, including potential
opportunities for cost savings, if desired.
May 20, 2014
222
Potential Funding Sources
Implementation of the Lincoln Avenue improvements would likely occur over a period of time,
require a phased approach, and involve multiple funding sources. Some of the potential funding
sources include:
• Voter-Approved Sales Tax Initiative
• Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
• Street Oversizing Fund
• Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG)
• Miscellaneous General Funds
• State and Federal Grants (potential reallocation of North College funds no longer
needed due to award of RAMP grant)
• Improvement Districts
The list of funding sources is an example of a way to partially seek funding for this project.
Various approval processes (e.g., City Council, voters, DDA Board) would be required to obtain
funding through these options and there is uncertainty in the amount available for each source.
The potential funding scenario detailed in the Plan shows approximately $11.3 million in
available funding from the above sources. This represents the maximum amount based on
realistic and reasonable assumptions and still yields a funding gap of $8 million.
Potential Enhancement Reduction Options and Project Phasing
At the February 25, 2014 Council Work Session and at recent Board & Commission meetings,
Staff heard concerns regarding the overall cost of the project and the resulting significant
funding challenges. The section below provides some options regarding the level of
enhancements, as well as potential phasing that might make the project easier to implement,
given the funding constraints.
The project could either be constructed as an entire corridor at once or in a phased approach
(e.g., by segment). There are also options for reducing or eliminating enhancements, as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Potential Enhancement Reduction Options
May 20, 2014
223
These options were discussed at the April 22, 2014 Work Session (see Attachment 3), and
Council favored Option 3; subsequently, staff added a reference to this approach in the Plan
(page 124) as follows:
“In final design a phasing approach that will be explored is constructing the overall roadway
framework first, and then later adding enhancements, such as enhanced landscaping and
gateway amenities.”
Transit and Neighborhood Projects
The transit phasing improvements proposed in this Plan will be considered in Transfort’s overall
system planning process; service changes will be implemented as warranted by demand and
funding availability.
The neighborhood projects (totaling approximately $1 million) could be implemented separately
from the larger Lincoln project. Staff has submitted a BFO offer for 2015/16 for the short-/mid-
term neighborhood projects. These neighborhood improvements would be phased, starting with
the basic infrastructure projects, and prioritized based on consultation with the neighbors as
well as funding availability.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Adoption of the Plan will have no direct environmental impacts. Future implementation of the
Plan will need to consider minimizing environmental impacts in several areas:
• New Lincoln Bridge over the Poudre River
• Poudre River Trail connection near bridge
• Lincoln construction impacts including noise, air quality, and water quality
The Preferred Alternative for Lincoln Avenue incorporates improvements for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and transit users. The results of these improvements could shift some trips away
from driving, resulting in air quality benefits. In addition, the Plan incorporates stormwater
management treatments for Low Impact Development that delay surface runoff, while improving
water quality.
BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Meeting notes and recommendations to Council from the various boards and commissions
(Transportation Board, Parks & Recreation Board, Economic Advisory Commission), and
Planning and Zoning Board are included in Attachment 4.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The planning process to develop the Plan reflected a priority to directly engage residents,
businesses, and stakeholders to ensure that their needs were being met, their issues addressed,
May 20, 2014
224
and their ideas reflected in the Vision for the corridor. Three strategies for public engagement
were used throughout the planning process: social media; public activities and events; and
outreach to boards and commissions. Specific community engagement activities included:
• 2 large public workshops
• Multiple open houses
• 3 online surveys
• Regular Boards/Commissions updates
• 3 Council Work Sessions
• 4 formal Stakeholder Group meetings
• Multiple small group/individual meetings
During the Phase I visioning process, the community reviewed case studies of memorable streets
and voiced support in particular for elements of two examples that included the boulevard
approach with wide medians and landscaping. Support for the boulevard approach was further
confirmed during the Phase II evaluation of alternatives, with the community generally favoring
the Broad Boulevard.
Staff continued to do outreach during the development and refinement of the Preferred
Alternative. For example, based on additional input from stakeholders, Staff refined the
Preferred Alternative to accommodate the needs of existing businesses and residents related to
access, truck turning movements, and impacts of pedestrian traffic while also providing a
flexible framework that responds to future potential development. For example, the design has
been specifically crafted to accommodate trucks in the corridor in addition to all of the other
enhancements (e.g., parking, buffered bike lanes, landscaping, medians, etc.). Furthermore,
pedestrian movements have been considered, including impacts to adjacent residential
neighborhoods. In addition to the Lincoln Avenue sidewalk improvements, several of the
neighborhood projects propose to address pedestrian enhancements and wayfinding to minimize
impacts in the neighborhoods. As mentioned in the Transit and Neighborhood Projects section,
these projects are part of a BFO offer for 2015/16 (separate from Lincoln Avenue) and will be
further refined during the Final Design process.
In January 2014, a majority of online survey respondents (75%+) were satisfied or very satisfied
with the Preferred Alternative design.
At the April 22 Work Session, City Council expressed the following:
1. Support for plan moving to adoption hearing
2. Support for exploring the option to construct the corridor in phases: basic roadway
framework first and then phase in some enhancements later. A statement to this effect is
being added to the final version of the plan. The initial Phase 1 cost estimate is
approximately $15.1M, and this will be refined during Final Design.
3. Support for neighborhood projects.”
Amy Lewin, FC Moves, stated this Plan does not allocate funding but does define the goals and
vision for the Lincoln Avenue corridor.
May 20, 2014
225
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, discussed the public outreach process and the budgeting for
outcomes offers associated with the Plan and detailed the next steps in the process, should the
Plan be adopted.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the money spent on this Plan.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, stated there is a lack of clarification in the Plan regarding
sidewalk implementation and stoplights for the area neighborhoods.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, suggested using the $19 million to address climate change,
install solar panels on City buildings, or expand Transfort services. She encouraged functional
rather than fancy infrastructure.
Cheryl Glance, Fort Collins resident, stated the attention to these neighborhoods is long overdue.
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, stated residents of the area
neighborhoods are pleased with the Lincoln Avenue design and encouraged Council to adopt a
more modest plan. Additionally, she discussed the needs of the area neighborhoods.
Cindy (no last name given), Fort Collins resident, discussed the need for sidewalks and stoplights
in the area neighborhoods.
Betty Aragon, 140 2
nd
Street, suggested the City wants this Plan in order to connect Old Town to
the brewery district. She encouraged the adoption of a more modest plan for Lincoln Avenue
and discussed the need for improvements in the area neighborhoods.
Ruby Slipka, 144 1
st
Street, questioned the impact of the improvements on area property taxes.
Darrel Slipka, 144 1
st
Street, stated the Lincoln Avenue plan seems to have too much fluff.
JoAnn Hopkins, 3101 Swallow Place, noted the railroad tracks cause many issues and the
infrastructure in the area is lacking.
Carmel “Chuck” Solano, 2200 Berkshire Drive, discussed the needs of the area neighborhoods.
Megan Bright, Fort Collins resident, expressed support and respect for City staff and their work
on the project.
Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice, questioned the cost of the project and stated the Vine and Lemay
issues need to be addressed.
Deborah Bueno, Fort Collins resident, discussed the need for storm drainage, sidewalks, and
traffic control in the area neighborhoods and questioned the cost of the Lincoln Avenue project.
May 20, 2014
226
Carmen Mendoza, 1248 Solstice, expressed concern that low-income areas are ignored and
suggested this project is designed to benefit breweries.
Mayor Weitkunat requested a discussion of the proposed phasing option. Wray replied Council
supported the option for holding off on a majority of the enhancements and proceeding with a
design and project cost that brings the roadway framework first prior to additional enhancements.
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Director, noted this is a
conceptual plan with a rough, preliminary cost estimate, which includes a 30% contingency. She
noted funding cannot be sought until costs are more definite; however, the next budget cycle
includes an offer for funding the neighborhood improvements.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about changes made to the item since the last work session.
Wray replied more detail has been flushed out in terms of roadway framework costs.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern with reconciling Council’s direction at the work
session with the plan as presented. City Manager Atteberry replied at the work session, Council
seemed receptive to the overall vision but was concerned about the phasing and discussed the
importance of an overall guiding plan. There was no hidden agenda related to this Plan and
gateways are important throughout the city.
Councilmember Campana stated this Plan is comprehensive and he expects additional dialogue
with regard to phasing and funding. He questioned how curbs, gutters and sidewalks are funded
for areas annexed into the city. Cumbo replied the annexation agreements outline what the City
will provide, and, in the case of the recent Southwest Enclave Annexation, it was the
responsibility of the neighborhood to bring the streets up to standard.
Councilmember Campana asked how areas with subpar improvements are funded. Cumbo
replied there are several unimproved streets in town and the City does not pave streets or provide
curb and gutter for those areas. The street maintenance program maintains existing streets.
Councilmember Campana encouraged additional dialogue regarding a permanent funding source
for these types of improvements.
Councilmember Overbeck stated neighborhoods should come first and asked when the
neighborhoods will begin to see improvements if the Lincoln Corridor Plan moves forward.
Wray replied the list of neighborhood projects are in the plan and a new budgeting for outcomes
offer has been drafted to seek funding for implementing those projects independently and
separate from the Lincoln Corridor project. He stated those improvements would occur in 2015
and 2016 if there is support for that budget offer.
Councilmember Cunniff asked what has changed in the Plan as a result of the most recent
Council work session as he expected a phased implementation with the right-of-way. Wray
replied during final design staff will identify a roadway framework that has cost reduction
options.
May 20, 2014
227
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Resolution authorizing the Plan would be incorporated into
the Plan document. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative and stated the Resolution would
adopt the Plan as written.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak recommended additional wording in the Plan to meet Councilmember
Cunniff’s suggestions.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like clauses indicating functional improvements will be
the beginning phases and that each phase will only be implemented if appropriately prioritized
funding relative to overall city capital needs is identified.
Councilmember Campana supported the revisions to the Resolution.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
City Attorney Roy read proposed changes to the Resolution and the Plan, indicating the Plan will
be implemented in phases, beginning with functional improvements and each phase of the Plan
will be implemented at such time as the City Council identifies appropriate funding sources,
taking into consideration the other capital improvement needs of the city.
Councilmember Campana suggested phasing should not be a requirement.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Resolution 2014-040, as amended.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak commended all involved in terms of the Plan and noted there is no
allocation of funds for its implementation.
Councilmember Cunniff commended the speakers, staff, and stakeholder groups and stated the
City needs to continue to look at its overall infrastructure needs.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed her support for having an overall plan.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw
and Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Spring Competitive Process, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the funding of the 2014 Spring Cycle of the Competitive
Process
May 20, 2014
228
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2014-041 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will
Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the City’s Human Services Program
(HSP).
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
C. Public Hearing and Resolution 2014-042 Approving the Fiscal Year 2014 Home Investment
Partnerships (HOME) Program’s Administration and Project Budgets.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program.
E. Public Hearing and Resolution 2014-043 Adopting the Citizen Participation Plan: 2014
Amendment as Required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Resolution 2014-041 will complete the 2014 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
allocating $3,229,902 in City financial resources to affordable housing projects, public service
programs and administration of the program that will receive funding beginning October 1,
2014. Projects receiving program income and prior year funds (FY2013 and FY2012) can
expend funds immediately. Ordinance No. 080, 2014, appropriates the City’s FY2014 CDBG
Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and CDBG
Program Income and transfers funds from FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed funds and FY2012
CDBG Unprogrammed funds for allocation in FY2014. Resolution 2014-042 establishes the
major funding categories within the HOME Program for the FY 2014 program year, which also
starts on October 1, 2014. Specific projects for the use of the remainder of HOME funds will be
determined in November as a result of the 2014 Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process.
Ordinance No. 081, 2014, appropriates the City’s FY2014 HOME Participating Jurisdiction
Grant from HUD and HOME Program Income. Resolution 2014-043 approves the Citizen
Participation Plan: 2014 Amendment, one of HUD’s five required federal planning and
reporting activities.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Resolution 2014-041, establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with CDBG,
HOME and HSP funds for the FY2014 program year that begins October 1, 2014. This includes
federal FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant funds, a portion of FY2014 HOME Participating
Jurisdiction Grant funds and the City’s 2014 HSP funds including an allocation of Keep Fort
Collins Great (KFCG) funds, which begins October 1, 2014. In addition, CDBG Program
Income, FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed funds, FY2012 CDBG Unprogrammed funds and
HOME Program Income dollars are available for immediate expenditure. The following table
provides the funding sources for FY2014 allocated in the spring:
May 20, 2014
229
2014 CDBG, HOME and HSP Funding Sources
Funding Source Amount
FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant $924,036
CDBG Program Income $797,304
FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed $250,000
FY2012 CDBG Unprogrammed $61,245
FY2014 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant* $539,698*
HOME Program Income - Housing Projects $530,280
HOME Program Income - Administration & Planning $43,192
FY2014 HSP $389,601
FY2014 HSP KFCG $250,047
Total $3,785,403
*HOME Funds are typically approved in the spring and allocated during the fall funding cycle.
The FY2014 HOME Grant portion for housing, $485,729 (grant of $539,698 minus the $53,969
for Planning and Administration) is not included in the total available funds for spring.
The FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant is $924,036 and the City received $797,304 in CDBG
Program Income. HUD regulations allow a maximum of 20% of CDBG Entitlement and CDBG
Program Income to be used for planning and program administrative purposes. Program
Income includes repayments from rehabilitation loans, homebuyer assistance loans, acquisition
loans and development loans. Program Income must be expended as soon as is reasonable,
whereas CDBG Entitlement dollars are available for expenditure beginning October 1, 2014.
Twenty percent of the FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant is $184,807 and 14% (amount requested
by staff) of CDBG Program Income is $111,109 for a total of $295,916. HUD regulations
require that the Program Income designated to Planning and Administration must be spent by
the end of the current fiscal year, which is September 30, 2014. CDBG Reprogrammed funds
($250,000) are monies returned to the program that were allocated in a prior year. CARE
Housing received funding in the spring of 2013 for pre-development costs for their
Provincetowne II project. Because the project will not be ready to proceed as soon as
anticipated, funds were returned to the program. CDBG Unprogrammed funds ($61,245) are
Planning and Administration dollars that were not disbursed. HUD regulations require both
categories of funds go back into the program for housing projects.
The maximum limit allowed by HUD regulations in the Public (Human) Services category for the
CDBG Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income is 15% (Reprogrammed and
Unprogrammed dollars are not allowed to be used towards this category). Allowable CDBG
funds in this category total $218,889 - $138,605 from the CDBG Entitlement Grant and $80,284
from CDBG Program Income. The City’s FY2014 HSP adds $389,601 and HSP KFCG funds
add an additional $250,047, for use in the category for a total of $639,648 of available City
funds. The total available funding in the Public (Human) Services category is $858,537.
Resolution 2014-042, establishes the major funding categories within the HOME program for
the FY2014 program year, which starts October 1, 2014. The FY2014 HOME grant is $539,698,
HOME 2014 Program Income for housing projects is $530,280, and HOME Program Income
for Planning and Administration is $43,192, for a total of $1,113,170. HUD regulations allow a
May 20, 2014
230
maximum of 10% of the HOME Grant, or $53,969, and eligible Program Income ($43,192) for a
total of $97,161, to be used for HOME program administrative purposes. HUD regulations also
require a 15% set-aside of the HOME grant, or $80,954, for Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs). CHDOs in Fort Collins include CARE Housing, Neighbor to
Neighbor, and The Villages (formerly the Fort Collins Housing Corporation).
Considering the set-asides for Planning and Administration and Public (Human) Services
mentioned above, along with the balance of the FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant ($600,624);
the balance of FY2013 CDBG Program Income ($605,911); FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed
($250,000); FY2012 CDBG Unprogrammed ($61,245) amounts; and HOME Program Income
($573,472), a total of $2,091,252 is available for allocation to the Housing category.
The following tables summarize the total funding amounts and sources of available from CDBG
and HOME funds for Planning and Administration during the FY2014 fiscal year:
Available Funding for FY2014 CDBG Planning and Administration
Funding Source Planning and Administration
FY2014 CDBG Grant $184,807
CDBG Program Income* $111,109
Total Available Funding $295,916
*CDBG Program Income for Planning and Administration ($111,109) must be expended by
September 30, 2014 per HUD Regulations.
Available Funding for FY2014 HOME Planning and Administration
Funding Source Planning and Administration
FY2014 HOME Grant $53,969
HOME Program Income-Admin $43,192
Total Available Funding $97,161
The following tables summarize the total funding amounts and sources of all available CDBG,
HOME and HSP funds for distribution in the housing and public service categories during the
FY2014 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process:
Available Funding for Housing in 2014 Spring Cycle
Funding Source Housing
FY2014 CDBG Grant $600,624
CDBG Program Income $605,911
FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed $250,000
FY2012 CDBG Unprogrammed $61,245
FY2014 HOME Grant* $0*
HOME Program Income-Projects $530,280
Total Available Funding $2,048,060
*HOME Funds are typically approved in the spring and allocated during the fall funding cycle.
The FY2014 HOME Grant portion for housing, $485,729 (grant of $539,698 minus the $53,969
May 20, 2014
231
for Planning and Administration) is not included in the total available funds for spring.
Available Funding for Public Service in 2014 Spring Cycle
Funding Source Public Service
FY2014 CDBG Grant* $138,605
CDBG Program Income* $80,284
FY2014 HSP $389,601
FY2014 HSP KFCG $250,047
Total Available Funding $858,537
*A maximum of 15% is allowed by HUD in the Public Service category from the CDBG
Entitlement Grant and CDBG Program Income.
The City received a total of 42 applications for funding and staff administration requests for
CDBG and HOME as part of the 2014 spring funding cycle, resulting in a total request of
$3,493,840. The total amount of funds available for housing and public service projects in the
spring from all sources is $2,906,597. This does not include HOME Grant funds of $485,729
typically allocated during the fall funding cycle. Application requests were $544,051 higher than
available funding. HUD regulation limitations within the Public Service category results in a
total of $447,112 more in requests than available funds in that category. Unfortunately, funds in
the Planning/Administration and Housing categories cannot be used to fund any Public Service
applications. The following table summarizes the amount of funding requests compared to the
amount of funding available for each of the major funding categories:
Housing and Public Service Funding Requests by Category
Category Number of
Applications
Available
Funding
Requested
Funding
Available
- Request
Differenc
e
FY2014 CDBG Planning &
Administration
* $295,916 $295,916 $0
FY2014 HOME Planning &
Administration
* $97,161 $97,161 $0
Housing 5 $2,048,060 $2,188,191 -$140,131
Public (Human) Services 37 $858,537 $1,305,649 -$447,112
Totals 42 $3,299,674 $3,886,917 -$587,243
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the Home Investment
Partnerships (HOME) Program (typically allocated in the fall) provide federal funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins, which can
be allocated to housing and community development related programs and projects, thereby
reducing the demand on the City’s General Fund Budget to address such needs. During FY2014,
the total amount of CDBG funds available for allocation is $2,032,585 and $1,113,170 for
HOME. The City’s General Fund contributes $389,601 in the Human Services Program (HSP)
May 20, 2014
232
and $250,047 in HSP KFCG funds for allocation during the Spring Cycle of the Competitive
Process, and $325,047 in Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) dollars in the fall. The total City
contribution for FY2014 is $964,695.
HOME grant funds are typically allocated in the fall process. In FY2014 HOME Program
Income is being allocated in the spring so funds can be spent as quickly as possible to satisfy
HUD regulations. Also, this spring the CDBG Commission is deviating from normal procedures
by recommending $140,131 of HOME Grant funds be allocated in the spring to fill the funding
gap between requested and available funds for the five housing proposals.
Through the provision of affordable housing, more of Fort Collins’ work force is able to reside
within the community. This creates an available labor pool within the city, which helps maintain
economic sustainability.
Public/human services programs contribute to economic sustainability by providing access to
programs such as job training and child care that enable workers to maintain employment and
housing. By providing funding to these programs - either for facility upgrades or partial
purchase of service locations; the agencies are better able to utilize other funds to serve their
clients.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Affordable housing programs help provide for a healthy environment. By offering affordable
housing options for lower income people, more of Fort Collins’ work force can live in the
community rather than living outside city limits and commuting to the city for work. In addition,
many affordable housing projects are located within close proximity to City bus routes. This
helps reduce traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled, thereby reducing pollution and
improving air quality.
Affordable housing developers, including for-profit and non-profit agencies, are utilizing green
building practices in both new construction and major rehabilitation of existing housing unit
projects. These practices include geo-thermal applications and other energy saving techniques.
All affordable housing projects utilizing CDBG and HOME funds are required to pass a HUD
Environmental Review, which covers such items as noise impacts, floodplains, hazardous
materials, etc.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The CDBG Commission presents recommendations on which programs and projects in the
housing and public service categories should receive funding from the available funding sources
presented above, including CDBG, HOME and HSP.
May 20, 2014
233
Allocation of HOME funds for specific affordable housing projects/programs and community
development activities, is normally determined in November as a result of the fall funding cycle
of the Competitive Process. In this cycle, funding requests totaled $140,131 more than the
housing category’s available funds. The CDBG Commission determined all five housing
proposals were projects that would benefit from receiving full funding in the spring. This
recommendation deviates from the established process approved by Council in 2000 (Resolution
2000-13). A similar deviation occurred following the Spring Cycle of 2012, where Council
approved partial allocation of the City’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to fill a gap in a
funding request by the Fort Collins Housing Authority (Resolution 2012-037). This year, the
CDBG Commission is recommending using $140,131 of FY2014 HOME Grant funds to fill the
gap present in the 2014 Spring Cycle. In addition, the HOME Program Income was allocated in
the spring to satisfy HUD requirements for immediate expenditure of program income dollars.
The following tables present the allocations recommended by the Commission to the City
Council within each major category:
Housing Category
Applicant Project/Program Funding
Request
Commission’s
Recommended
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent
of
Request
Funded
Fort Collins Housing Authority:
Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive
Housing
$350,000 $350,000 $0 100%
Fort Collins Housing Authority:
Seventy Two: A Vibrant, Sustainable
Community
$720,000 $720,000 $0 100%
Habitat for Humanity: Avondale Lot
Purchase
$700,000 $700,000 $0 100%
Housing Catalyst (FCHA):
Cunningham Corner Rehab
$38,191 $38,191 $0 100%
Villages: Village on Matuka -
Housing Rehabilitation
$380,000 $380,000 $0 100%
Housing Total $2,188,191 $2,188,191* $0
*HOME funds of $104,131, typically allocated in the fall funding cycle, are being recommended
by the CDBG Commission to be allocated in the Spring Cycle to fill the funding requests of all 5
housing proposals.
Public Service Category
Applicant Project/Program Funding
Request
Commission’s
Recommended
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent
of
Request
May 20, 2014
234
Applicant Project/Program Funding
Request
Commission’s
Recommended
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent
of
Request
Funded
B.A.S.E. Camp: Childcare
Scholarships
$66,000 $56,000 $10,000 85%
Boys & Girls Clubs: Building Great
Futures
$43,973 $24,927 $19,046 57%
CASA Program: Court Appointed
Special Advocate
$28,487 $6,784 $21,703 24%
CASA Program: Harmony House
Supervised Visitation Center
$28,750 $15,000 $13,750 52%
Catholic Charities: Senior Services $15,000 $15,000 0% 100%
Catholic Charities: Shelter & Post-
Shelter Services
$60,000 $40,000 $20,000 67%
Center for Family Outreach: Low
Income Youth Scholarship Program
$7,500 $7,500 $0 100%
ChildSafe Colorado: Child Sexual
Abuse Treatment Program
$36,000 $30,000 $6,000 83%
ChildSafe Colorado: Healthy
Families Program
$3,500 $0 $3,500 0%
Colo. Health Network (NCAP):
Client Services & Homelessness
Prev.
$32,754 $18,514 $14,240 57%
Crossroads Safehouse: Advocacy
Program
$60,318 $39,000 $21,318 65%
Disabled Resource Services: Access
to Independence (ATI)
$28,736 $26,261 $2,475 91%
Education & Life Training Center:
JobReady & Circles Employment
$53,735 $0 $53,735 0%
Elderhaus: Therapeutic Activity
Program
$35,355 $27,878 $7,477 79%
Family Center: Childcare
Scholarships
$50,000 $42,500 $7,500 85%
FoCo Café: Farm-to-Fork Food
Service Skill Development
$19,800 $0 $19,800 0%
May 20, 2014
235
Applicant Project/Program Funding
Request
Commission’s
Recommended
Funding
Unfunded
Balance
Percent
of
Request
Funded
Larimer County Child Advocate
Center: Victim Services - Child
Abuse Prevention
$32,000 $22,000 $10,000 69%
Learning House: Project Help the
House
$13,400 $0 $13,400 0%
Learning House: Project Playing to
Learn
$8,706 $0 $8,706 0%
The Matthews House: Empowering
Youth Program
$34,158 $34,158 $0 100%
Neighbor to Neighbor: Housing
Counseling
$60,000 $38,630 $21,370 64%
Neighbor to Neighbor: Rent
Assistance
$36,125 $36,125 $0 100%
Project Self-Sufficiency: Services
for Single Parent Families
$35,000 $30,000 $5,000 86%
Rehab. & Visiting Nurse
Association: Home Health Care
Scholarships
$40,000 $35,000 $5,000 88%
Respite Care: Childcare
Scholarships
$35,000 $32,500 $2,500 93%
Serve 6.8: Sister Mary Alice Murphy
Center for Hope
$30,888 $18,533 $12,355 60%
SAVA Center: Bisexual Sexual
Assault Victim Services
$44,725 $14,367 $30,358 32%
Teaching Tree Early Childhood
Learning Center: Childcare
Scholarships
$60,000 $50,000 $10,000 83%
Touchstone Health Partners: CDDT
Program
$62,702 $31,328 $31,374 50%
Touchstone Health Partners: Mental
Health Services - Murphy Center
$24,707 $18,000 $6,707 73%
Turning Point: Crisis Intervention
Program
May 20, 2014
236
Funding Recommendations by Category
Category Recommended Funding % of
Total
Housing $2,188,191 72%
Public Service $858,557 28%
Total $3,046,748 100%
The CDBG Commission has recommended $3,046,748 (105%) of the available spring funding
amount ($2,906,597) be allocated. In the Housing category the Commission has recommended
full funding for all 5 proposals, using $104,131 of the HOME Grant funds typically allocated in
the fall funding cycle to fill the gap. The Commission has recommended that 6 of the 37 Public
Service proposals receive full funding; 26 proposals receive partial funding (ranging from 24%
to 91%); and 5 proposals receive no funding. The justifications for the CDBG Commission’s
recommendations can be found in the minutes from the April 10, 2014 meeting (not yet approved
by the CDBG Commission), submitted here as Attachment 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
HUD regulations require a 30-day public comment period on the proposed allocation of CDBG
funds as recommended by the CDBG Commission. Staff placed an ad in the Coloradoan on April
13, 2014, presenting the list of recommended funding for programs/projects, and also indicated
the public comment period would run from April 14, 2014 - May 13, 2014. Additionally, the
public notice announcing funding recommendations was placed on the Social Sustainability
Department’s website and distributed to 12 entities serving a majority of clients in legally
protected classes - including those in a racial/ethnic minority, those with a disability, or female
heads of household - or serving those community members who might otherwise have barriers to
public participation in the City’s civic engagement processes. To date no public comments have
been received.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN: 2014 AMENDMENT
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets forth five major reporting
activities that it requires of communities receiving federal funds. The City of Fort Collins
submits several large reports and plans each year as part of that framework. An additional
reporting component is the Citizen Participation Plan. This document upholds HUD’s values for
inclusive, accessible, and equitable engagement for all community members in the planning and
decision making processes of government. As such, it outlines requirements for everything from
the length of public review periods to communications standards for public notices. The Citizen
Participation Plan was last updated in 2010.
The Citizen Participation Plan: 2014 Amendment is a major reworking, intended to address and
implement--among other things--new regulatory requirements and communications standards
best practices. The amendment was crafted to reflect the City’s commitments to regulatory
compliance, “exceptional service for an exceptional community,” and operational excellence for
civic engagement. It was also redesigned to be a more effective reference tool for compliance.
May 20, 2014
237
The draft document requires a 30-day public review period before its final submittal to HUD in
August. Notice of the review period was published in The Coloradoan, posted on the City’s
website, and posted and shared at a dozen community partner entities serving those community
members in legally protected classes (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities, persons with a disability,
female heads of households) or other persons with potential barriers to civic participation.
The draft document was available at all three Poudre River Library District branches, at the
Social Sustainability Department, and on the City’s web site. In addition, focus group chats
(some bilingual) were conducted at the Murphy Center, the Family Center/la Familia, and
Circles Larimer. The Citizen Participation Plan: 2014 Amendment was reviewed internally by
City staff in Social Sustainability, CPIO, the City Attorney’s Office, and by the Grants
Compliance Administrator. The amendment does not require formal recommendation by the
CDBG Commission.
The draft document was reviewed by the City’s HUD Community Partnership Division (CPD)
and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) division representatives. It was also subject
to an official review by HUD staff during a mid-May, on-site monitoring at the City of Fort
Collins, with satisfactory results.
To date, no complaints or concerns regarding the draft document have been received. This
Citizen Participation Plan: 2014 Amendment is being brought forward, as required, for City
Council adoption. The document is included as Exhibit A to Resolution 2014-043.”
City Manager Atteberry noted this discussion item is also considered a public hearing for the
Federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding and the HUD required
citizen participation plan.
Sharon Thomas, Grants Administrator, discussed the process for determining grant recipients
and stated two of the funding sources are federal CDBG and HOME funds and one funding
source is human services, all of which are used to help low to moderate-income community
members. She detailed the proposed grant recipient projects.
Kristin Candella, Habitat for Humanity, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for
recommending funding for the Lots at Avondale.
Tatiana Martin, Affordable Housing Board Vice-Chair, thanked the CDBG Commission for
recommending funding for affordable housing.
LeAnn Massey, Respite Care Executive Director, thanked the CDBG Commission for
recommending funding and for past funding.
Kristin Fritz, Fort Collins Housing Authority, thanked the CDBG Commission and Council for
on-going support of development and preservation of affordable housing in the community.
May 20, 2014
238
Guy Mewdt, Catholic Charities, thanked the CDBG Commission for its funding recommendation
and thanked the City for on-going efforts to protect affordable housing.
Linda Preston, Base Camp, thanked the CDBG Commission for its funding recommendation.
Joanne Vandewalle, Elderhaus Mindset, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for its funding
recommendation.
Ann Lanz, Teaching Tree Executive Director, thanked the CDBG Commission for its funding
recommendation.
Laurie Klith, Center for Family Outreach Executive Director, thanked staff and the CDBG
Commission for its funding recommendation.
Nancy Jackson, Disabled Resource Services Director, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission
for its funding recommendation.
Emily Peterson, Touchstone Health Partners, thanked staff and the CDBG Commission for its
funding recommendation.
Jeff Baumgardner, FoCo Café, commended the CDBG Commission and its efforts.
Mayor Weitkunat commended the work of the CDBG Commission and thanked those who
spoke.
Councilmember Overbeck asked how often HUD audits the City. Thomas replied the audits are
about once a year.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Resolution 2014-041.
Councilmember Poppaw thanked those who spoke and commended the work of those
organizations. She also thanked the CDBG Commission, Affordable Housing Commission, and
staff.
Councilmember Overbeck thanked the speakers and commended the organizations and CDBG
Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak commended staff, the CDBG Commission, and the organizations.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw, Horak and
Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
May 20, 2014
239
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 080, 2014, on First Reading. Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw,
Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Resolution 2014-042. Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 081, 2014, on First Reading. Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw,
Horak and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Resolution 2014-043. Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw, Horak and Weitkunat.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of Three Appeals of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s
March 19, 2014 Decision to Approve the Summit on College Parking
Structure, Major Amendment, Remanded to Hearing Officer
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal; the grounds for appeal are as
follows:
Appellant Lester M. Kaplan and Appellant Jeffrey Leef:
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land
Use Code and Charter.
Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
o The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
o The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant
to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
May 20, 2014
240
Appellant Councilmember Cunniff:
Other.
Council directed staff to prepare a matrix of allegations of appeal illustrating the grounds for
appeal from each Appellant and the allegations similarities.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing Officer considered the application for the Summit
on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment. The Hearing Officer issued a decision to
approve the Major Amendment with conditions. The application consisted of a request to
construct a parking structure consisting of 440 parking spaces. The proposed structure will be
built over an existing surface parking lot, resulting in a net gain of 352 spaces. The parking
structure consists of 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 3 ½ stories.
The site is located just west of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street, where
Stuart Street dead ends into the railroad track and the MAX Bus Rapid Transit line. The lot is
zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is also within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone. The proposal is processed as a Major Amendment to the approved Choice Center
(The Summit on College) Project Development Plan. On April 29, 2014, three Notices of Appeal
to the Hearing Officer’s decision to approve were filed on the grounds that the Hearing Officer
failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of
the Code.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing?
(Lester M. Kaplan) Process should be Type 2 not Type 1 because a condition was imposed
that limits use to Summit tenants only.
“The Hearing Officer has determined that the parking garage must qualify as an Accessory
Use as defined in the Code in order for the application not to require a Type 2 review.
However, the Hearing Officer’s attempt to adjust the application by conditioning approval
upon restricted user to ‘Authorized Users’ is contrive and fails to satisfy his motive.”
The Hearing Officer’s findings of fact and decision regarding the hearing type are as follows:
“4. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the Choice Center Mixed-
Use Redevelopment Project Development Plan, Case Number PDP #15-08 (the “PDP”) was
processed as a Type 1 Administrative Hearing in accordance with the development review
process set forth in Division 4.21 of the LUC at the time of the PDP submittal. The PDP was
approved, with conditions, by a hearing officer on or about November 3, 2008.
5. Subsequent to approval of the PDP, Division 4.21 of the LUC was amended. If a project
development plan similar to the PDP had been filed with the City following the effective date of
May 20, 2014
241
the amendment, a Type 2 review process would have been required. That is, if a proposal for a
residential project containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75)
bedrooms, were filed with the City today, a Type 2 review (review by the Planning and Zoning
Board) would be required. However, the Type 2 review process is not applicable to this
proposed Major Amendment.
6. Section 2.2.10(B)(1) of the LUC sets forth in relevant part that “[m]ajor amendments to
development plans . . . approved under [the LUC] shall be reviewed and processed in the same
manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought.” Because
the PDP was reviewed as a Type 1 review in 2008, the Hearing Officer finds that the Type 1
review process is the correct and appropriate review process for the major amendment
application that has been submitted by the Applicant.
13. Section 4.21(B) of the LUC sets forth the permitted uses in the C-G District. The Hearing
Officer finds that the proposed parking structure is an accessory use to The Summit. Section
5.1.2 of the LUC defines “accessory use” as “. . . a use of land . . . customarily used with, and
clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the land . . . and ordinarily located on
the same lot with such principal use.” In addition, Section 3.8.1 of the LUC identifies “off street
parking areas” as an appropriate accessory use, provided that the facts, circumstances, and
context of such proposed accessory use is reasonable.”
The condition of approval referenced by the Appellant can be found in the Decision on page 8.
The Hearing Officer writes, “In order for the proposed parking garage to be clearly incidental
and subordinate to the principal use of Lot 1, the parking garage shall be reserved and
dedicated for use by the Authorized Users only. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that this
condition will ensure that the parking garage is, and remains, an accessory use.”
Staff also presented the reason the project is being processed via an Administrative Hearing
(Type 1) instead of by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) on page 21, line 32 through page
22, line 6 of Verbatim Transcript.
(Jeffrey Leef) Also alleges that, process should be Type 2, not Type 1. However, this
allegation was filed on the grounds “failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the code”.
“The proposed structure is not an accessory use.”
(Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing officer intruded “into Jurisdiction of Urban Renewal
Authority.”
The Hearing Officer did not reference the Urban Renewal Authority in his findings or decision.
The applicant’s comments regarding the topic can be found on page 19, line 4 through line 23 of
the Verbatim Transcript.
(Jeffrey Leef) “The Hearing Officer exceeded its authority or jurisdiction by not considering the
May 20, 2014
242
size of vehicles to be parked on the roof of the proposed structure and not appropriately
protecting the views of neighbors.”
The Hearing Officer’s findings of fact regarding building height and view are as follows:
“9. Public testimony at the hearing was focused on five main issues: … (3) preservation of the
existing mountain view to the west enjoyed by the owners, lessees and patrons of the 1801
Building (1801 S. College Avenue); (4) public safety; and (5) project design and compatibility
with the surrounding land uses. The Hearing Officer concludes that the special height review
process outlined in Section 3.5.1(G)(1) of the LUC is not applicable to the proposed Major
Amendment, as the height of the proposed parking structure does not exceed forty (40) feet.”
The staff report notes that, “The concern regarding views of the mountains is addressed by the
Land Use Code for buildings greater than 40 feet in height. Because the proposed parking
structure is less than 40 feet in height, Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(1)Views is not applicable.”
There is no additional information in the record regarding vehicles parked on the top of the
parking structure.
(Jeffrey Leef) also alleges “the maximum height of the proposed structure together with the
size of parked vehicles on its roof would potentially, if not likely, exceed 40 feet.”
(Jeffrey Leef) “The Hearing Officer improperly assumed and opined that college students
who are residents of the Summit would drive smaller cars.”
This allegation was not addressed in the record of the hearing.
(Jeffrey Leef) “The Hearing Officer exceeded its authority or jurisdiction by requiring the
applicant to record a covenant against Lot 1.”
The Hearing Officer’s condition of approval, referenced by the Appellant, is as follows:
“(11) That all 440 spaces within the proposed parking garage be reserved and dedicated for use
by the student residents of The Summit, or their guests, or by the retail tenants/customers of the
retail located within Lot 1 (collectively, the “Authorized Users”). The Applicant is seeking
approval of the parking garage as an accessory use.
Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines Accessory use as “a use of land or of a building or portion
thereof customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the
land or building and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal use” (emphasis
added). Section 3.8.1 of the LUC identifies off-street parking areas as a permitted accessory use
when the facts, circumstances and context of such use is reasonably indicated. The principal use
of Lot 1 is a mixed-use project consisting primarily of multi-family residential.
In order for the proposed parking garage to be clearly incidental and subordinate to the
principal use of Lot 1, the parking garage shall be reserved and dedicated for use by the
May 20, 2014
243
Authorized Users only. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that this condition will ensure that
the parking garage is, and remains, an accessory use. The Applicant shall add a note to the FDP
which clarifies that the parking garage is an accessory structure, and that parking within the
garage shall be available only to the Authorized Users, as that term is defined in this condition
(E)(11). The Applicant shall also record a covenant against Lot 1, Choice Center Subdivision
which shall set forth that all 440 parking spaces within the parking garage shall be reserved for
the exclusive use of the Authorized Users for so long as the parking garage remains operational
and that no other individuals or parties shall be authorized to park within the parking structure
(the “Covenant”). The Covenant shall run with the land and bind the Owner’s successor(s) or
assign(s). The Covenant shall also set forth that no portion of the parking garage may be rented
or leased (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly, annual or other basis) to any person or entity
other than the Authorized Users.” (Additional information on the “Covenant” is contained in the
Decision on page 8.)
And, the hearing discussion regarding this topic can be found in the Verbatim Transcript at page
8, line 20 through line 24, and page 21, line 32 through page 22, line 6.
(Jeffrey Leef) “The Hearing Officer received no evidence to support the applicant’s mere
assumption that the parking spaces with drive aisles reduced … be limited to ‘long term’
parking.”
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), long-term parking stalls are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions - Off-street
parking areas for automobiles must meet
minimum standards for long- and short-term
parking of standard and compact vehicles. (3)
Long-Term Parking Stalls. As an option in
long-term parking areas, all long-term parking
stalls may be designated using the following
stall dimensions: Parking Angle 60, Stall
Width, 8.5', Stall Length 18' Parking Angle
90, Stall Width, 8.5', Stall Length 18'
The Parking Structure proposed parking angle
for the east bay of parking is 60 degrees, with
stall widths of 8.5', stall lengths of 18' and one-
way drive aisles on all levels. The proposed
angle for the west two bays of parking will be
90 degrees, with stall widths of 8.5', stall
lengths of 18' and two-way 24' wide drive
aisles on all levels. The request for
Modification of Standards detailed below is to
decrease the drive aisle for the east angled
one-way parking bay to 15'. 438 stalls are
proposed at this size. Two stalls are proposed
to be compact at 8' x 16', which is consistent
with the size allowed at Section 3.3.2(L)(2) for
up to 40% of the Parking Structure.
The Applicant spoke to the topic of “long-term” parking on page 19, line 38 through page 20,
line 4 of the Verbatim Transcript.
May 20, 2014
244
Additional discussion regarding the topic of “long-term” parking can be found in the Verbatim
Transcript at page 17, Line 13 through 15 and line 35 through page 18, line 2, and page 41, line
16 through 29.
(Lester M. Kaplan) also alleges “the applicant presents no analytical support for this
assertion” that “100 percent of the parking … will be used as ‘long term’ rather than normal
parking.” However, this allegation was filed on the grounds “failure to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the code”.
(Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing Officer considered evidence in the form of “grossly
distorted and inaccurate slides of the impacts” of the proposed structure on “the existing
views to the west from the property at 1801 S. College Avenue”.
The Hearing Officer noted in Attachment 1: Evidence accepted by Hearing Officer of the
Hearing Officer’s Decision (attachment 6), as part of the record of this proceeding in Section C
that he accepted into the record the images referenced by the Appellants.
The images of the view from the property at 1801 S. College, as presented by the applicant, can
be found in Attachment 9.
(Jeffrey Leef) also alleges “the applicant submitted a grossly inaccurate, obviously staged
photograph.”
(Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing Officer considered evidence in the form of “a February 3,
2014 report from Desman Associates, presented incomplete and misleading information
regarding the performance level resulting from a reduction of the drive aisles from the City-
required 20’ to the proposed 15’ modification.”
“It is implausible that reducing the drive aisle from 20’ to 15’ promotes the general purpose
of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard.”
However, this allegation was filed on the grounds “failure to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the code” and is also contained in that section of this report.
The Hearing Officer’s determination that the project proposal complies with the required
findings for the requested Modification of Standard are as follows:
“Request for Modification of Standard
19. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted to
the Hearing Officer in this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Modification of Standard
(for Section 3.2.2(L) of the LUC) meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the
Code. Specifically, the Hearing Officer finds as follows:
a. The requested Modification of Standard (the “Modification”) is not detrimental to the public
good.
May 20, 2014
245
b. The Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the Code - the Plan as submitted will
promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well
or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested. Section 3.2.2(L) establishes certain minimum standards for long- and short-term
parking of standard and compact vehicles. The applicant hired parking consultants Desman
Associates to analyze the proposed modification. The Desman Associates report analyzed the
requested modification and concluded that the drive aisle width could be reduced to 15’ with no
detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure.”
The Hearing Officer also found in his decision:
“A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width
(from 20’ to 15’) is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of
the standard for which the modification is requested equally well than would a plan which
complies with the 20’ width because the Applicant has submitted sufficient probative evidence to
demonstrate that the requested modification will not have a detrimental effect on users of the
proposed parking structure. The modification of standard, as approved, shall be limited to the
easternmost bay of each level of the parking garage.”
The February 3, 2014 report from Desman Associates can be found in attachment 9 of the staff
report (Attachment 7). Staff recommended approval of the Modification of Standard request on
page 15 of the staff report.
Discussion regarding the Modification of Standard can be found at page 17, line 5 through page
18, line 19, and page 51, line 10 through 22 of the Verbatim Transcript.
(Jeffrey Leef) The Hearing Officer received and considered information about “why” the
Summit needs more parking.
The Hearing Officer did not address this topic in the findings and decision.
However, the Hearing Officer and the Applicant had a brief discussion regarding the reason for
the number of parking spaces proposed on page 13 of the verbatim transcript of the hearing.
(Jeffrey Leef) “The existing project is incompatible with the surrounding area in terms of
enormous massing, and the proposed parking structure will only materially exacerbate the
project incompatibility.”
“Assessing compatibility of the physical characteristics of a proposed building within the
context of its surrounding area must include a comparison with other buildings in the area.”
However, this allegation was filed on the grounds “failure to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the code” and is also contained in that section of this report.
“The evidence showed that the proposed structure would significantly and obnoxiously add
to the unattractiveness of the already incompatibly massive development.”
May 20, 2014
246
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), compatibility in terms of building size and massing and elements of
design are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass,
Scale -"Buildings shall either be similar in size
and height, or, if larger, be articulated and
subdivided into massing that is proportional to
the mass and scale of other structures."
The proposed parking structure is compatible
with surrounding development in terms of
building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale in
that it is 3 ½ stories tall (37’-9” with one stair
tower extending to 49’-4”). The building to the
east (known as the Maytag Building at 1801 S.
College Street) is one story with a garden level
and approximately 100 feet in length, and
directly to the north is the residential portion
of Summit which is 4 and 5 stories in height
and a maximum length of 560 feet. The east
and west sides of the parking structure is 230
feet in length and the north and south sides are
175 feet in length.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility -
Ensure that characteristics of the proposed
buildings and uses are compatible when
considered within the context of the
surrounding area. In areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively
established, or is not consistent with the
purposes of this Land Use Code, the
architecture of new development shall set an
enhanced standard of quality for future
projects or redevelopment in the area.
The Parking Structure is architecturally
consistent with The Summit. It is intended to
blend with The Summit, both in color and
materials. Architectural elements match the
adjacent development and stone clad pilasters
and window elements have been incorporated
at ground level to establish human scale and to
encourage pedestrian activity. The ground
level has a stone veneer with matching accent
columns stretching the entire height of the
building. Cementitious panel elements with
windows are protruding on corners and in
several locations along the façade to break up
the overall size of the building. The panels are
painted to match the existing Summit buildings.
The roofline is capped with a sheet metal
cornice.
The staff report addresses compatibility in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code on page 12 and
13.
Discussion at the hearing regarding compatibility can be found at page 9, line 26 through page
10, line 30, and page 47, line 33 through page 48, line 8 of the Verbatim Transcript.
May 20, 2014
247
(Jeffrey Leef) “The Hearing Officer received and considered evidence from the applicant
which tended misleading to downplay the serious problem with traffic.”
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), compatibility in terms of building size and massing are referenced as
follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.2.2(C)(8) Transportation Impact Study
Required
As part of the Major Amendment application, a
transportation impact study was required,
including revised total traffic project impact
numbers. (12/16/13 ELB Engineering, LLC
Traffic Impact Study Addendum (Parking
Structure Addition) and 1/28/14 Supplemental
Memorandum). The capacity analysis indicates
the intersection of College and Stuart will
operate at acceptable levels through 2028. No
additional residential units are being
proposed, so the amount of traffic that is
currently exists is projected to remain
constant. The transportation impact indicates
that, due to its location and proximity to the
MAX bus rapid transit system, the proposed
parking garage may be used for predominantly
storage parking.
3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service - Project
must provide adequate vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the
City's adopted Levels of Service standards.
A Traffic Engineering Study was submitted and
accepted by the City’s Traffic Operations
Department. City Staff has concluded that the
project adequately provides vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to
maintain the City’s adopted standards
pertaining to Levels of Service. The Hearing
Officer agrees that this standard has been
satisfied.
Attachment 13 of the staff report (Attachment 7) is the Transportation Impact Study
Memorandum that was accepted by the City’s Traffic Engineering Staff.
Discussion of traffic conditions at the intersection of College Avenue and Stuart Street by Ward
Stanford, City Traffic Engineer can be found at page 53, line 10 through line 12 of the Verbatim
Transcript.
Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code?
May 20, 2014
248
(Lester M. Kaplan) “There is nothing in the Code nor is there any rationale to allow the
public safety requirements for separation between pedestrians and vehicles to be ignored in
this parking structure.”
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), separation between pedestrians and vehicles is referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.2.2(C)(5) Walkways - Directness and
Continuity and emphasis of pedestrian access
and safety in crossing of drive aisles or
internal roadways.
Pedestrian access to and from the proposed
parking garage has been established utilizing
existing sidewalk routes at the northwest and
northeast corners of the parking deck that will
not require pedestrians to cross in front of
vehicles when turning into or exiting the deck.
3.2.2(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements
- Vehicular uses shall be designed to be safe,
efficient, convenient and attractive,
considering use by all modes of transportation
that will use the system. This includes, to the
maximum extent feasible, separation of
pedestrians and vehicles through provision of
a sidewalk or walkway
Pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the
parking deck has been established along pre-
existing access routes at the northwest and
northeast corners of facility. Neither access
route will require pedestrians or bicycles to
cross in front of vehicles turning into or exiting
the parking deck.
(Jeffrey Leef) also alleges “the code requires that to the maximum extent feasible,
pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles.”
(Lester M. Kaplan) Bicycle parking “not intended for enclosed spaces & safety concern.”
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), bicycle parking is referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.2.2(C)(3) Site Amenities - Development plans
shall include site amenities that enhance safety
and convenience and promote walking or
bicycling as an alternative means of
transportation. Site amenities may include bike
racks, drinking fountains, canopies and
benches as described in the Fort Collins
Bicycle Program Plan and Pedestrian Plan as
adopted by the city.
The Applicant proposes additional bike racks
on the ground floor of the proposed parking
structure and has proposed adding additional
bike racks around the existing buildings. The
parking garage project also includes a
connecting walkway to access the adjacent city
park (to the south) and two pedestrian bench
seating areas.
May 20, 2014
249
The staff report addresses the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance on page 11,
and the applicant’s request is attachment 8 of the staff report (attachment 7).
Staff addressed the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance at the hearing on page 23,
line 19 through line 34 of the Verbatim Transcript.
The Applicant addressed the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance on page 44, line
3 through 23 of the Verbatim Transcript.
(Jeffrey Leef) “The maximum height of the proposed structure together with the size of
parked vehicles on its roof would potentially, if not likely, exceed 40 feet.”
The Hearing Officer’s findings of fact regarding building height and view can be found on page
3 of the Decision.
The staff report notes that, “The concern regarding views of the mountains is addressed by the
Land Use Code for buildings greater than 40 feet in height. Because the proposed parking
structure is less than 40 feet in height, Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(1)Views is not applicable.”
The fact that vehicles will be parked on the top of the parking structure was not discussed in the
record.
Other questions for Council consideration.
(Councilmember Cunniff) “Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(e) ‘The
project shall be designed so that the character of the proposed development…shall minimize
the degradation of the ecological character or wildlife use of the affected natural habitats or
features’? If so, what evidence was used to support this finding?”
“Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(g) ‘The project shall be designed to
enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site…’? If so, what evidence supports
this finding?”
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer’s
Decision (Attachment 6), natural habitats or features are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC (Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction
of Standard
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features - Applies
if portion of the development site is within 500'
of an area or feature identified as a natural
habitat or feature on the City's Natural
Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Purpose
is to ensure design and arrangement of site
protects the natural habitats and features both
on the site and in the vicinity of the site.
An Ecological Characterization Study was
performed as part of the Major Amendment. A
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is proposed to
buffer the development from Spring Creek. The
standard buffer requirement for Spring Creek
in the LUC per Section 3.4.1(E)(1) is 100' and
an average 100' buffer is proposed. The Major
Amendment proposes to meet the standards by
May 20, 2014
250
applying the performance standards at Section
3.4.1(E) and incorporates various elements
into the design, including no fencing,
incorporating native plantings and screening,
payment of a fee-in lieu based on conceptual
landscape plan.
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on
pages 11 and 12. The Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) and ECS Checklist can be found
as attachment 10 and 11 of the staff report (attachment 7). The staff report discusses how the
project will protect and enhance the site’s ecological value and protect the site from lighting
spillover.
The Spring Creek buffer is discussed on pages 13 and 14 of the verbatim transcript. The planned
stream restoration is discussed on pages 22 and 23 of the hearing’s verbatim transcript.
(Councilmember Cunniff) Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(I)(1)
“Projects…shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat”? If so,
what evidence was used to support this finding?
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on
pages 11 and 12. The staff report discusses how the project will complement the visual context of
the natural habitat through a multi-structured vegetation screen (see page 12) through plantings
of native vegetation “that includes 104 trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix.” The
landscape plan and elevations show how a vertical trellis planted with vines will provide vertical
screening. The fee-in-lieu exhibit (Attachment 12 to the staff report) illustrates how the
landscaping on the City’s property adjacent to the site complements the existing habitat and
screens the parking structure.
The evidence to support the statement in the staff report is presented in the Ecological
Characterization Study (ECS) (Attachment 10 to the staff report) and the ECS Checklist
(Attachment 11 to the staff report). The ECS evaluates the project for compliance with LUC
Section 3.4.1(I)(1) on pages 2 and 3 and offers recommendations for how to achieve compliance
with this standard.
The visual context of the natural habitat was not discussed at the Administrative Hearing.
(Councilmember Cunniff) “Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(I)(2) ‘Projects
shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural
features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the
natural features within the site’? If so, what evidence supports this finding?”
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on
pages 11 and 12. The staff report discusses how the project will minimize degradation of the
visual character through a multi-structured vegetation screen (see page 12) through plantings of
May 20, 2014
251
native vegetation “that includes 104 trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix.” The
landscape plan and elevations show how a vertical trellis planted with vines will provide vertical
screening. The fee-in-lieu exhibit (Attachment 12 to the staff report) illustrates how the
landscaping on the City’s property adjacent to the site complements the existing habitat and
screens the parking structure.
The evidence to support the statement in the staff report is presented in the Ecological
Characterization Study (ECS) (Attachment 10 to the staff report) and the ECS Checklist
(Attachment 11 to the staff report). The ECS addresses visual character on pages 2 and 3.
The visual character of the natural habitat was not discussed at the Administrative Hearing.”
Mayor Weitkunat noted the three appeals will be combined in one hearing.
City Attorney Roy described the appeals process.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, discussed the project site and the approval granted by the
Hearing Officer on March 19, 2014. He noted there were three appellants, Lester Kaplan,
Jeffrey Leef, and Councilmember Cunniff and discussed the appeal allegations.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the site visit conducted by Council and stated she examined sight
lines.
Councilmember Campana stated the buffer adjacent to Spring Creek and sight lines were
examined.
Councilmember Overbeck stated the Spring Creek buffers and building adjacent to the proposed
garage were examined.
Councilmember Cunniff concurred with previous Councilmembers.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated massing and scale were discussed and stated swift enforcement for
illegal parking does occur at the site.
Councilmember Cunniff discussed his appeal allegations, stating the proposed parking garage is
within 100 feet of the Spring Creek boundary. He stated his first three questions were answered
by the ecological characterization study and withdrew those questions; however, he questioned
whether or not the proposed structure minimizes the obstruction of scenic views to and from the
natural features within a site, as per the Land Use Code.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Rick Zier, attorney representing Angela King, David Rose, and Jeffrey Leef, tenants at 1801
South College, requested Council overturn the decision of the Hearing Officer. He discussed his
appeal allegations relating to view protection and stated view protection is part of compatibility
May 20, 2014
252
in the Land Use Code. Additionally, Mr. Zier detailed other components of compatibility
arguing they were not met by the proposed project.
Jeffrey Leef, tenant at 1801 South College, thanked Council and staff for making a site visit and
discussed his belief in the MAX bus system and transit-oriented development.
Mr. Zier stated the only project in the area which is in character with the proposed parking
structure is The Summit project itself and discussed the importance of the transit-oriented
overlay district, noting a parking structure is not an accessory use for a transit-oriented
development.
Lester Kaplan, building owner at 1801 South College, stated this proposal is unprecedented in
that there are no other privately-owned and operated parking structures in the city. He argued
the Hearing Officer ignored the Land Use Code requirement that, to the maximum extent
feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. Additionally, Mr. Kaplan
argued the requested modification for a 15 foot drive aisle does not perform equally well or
better than the required 20 foot drive aisle and stated the parking structure use cannot be
considered incidental and secondary. He opposed the requested alternative compliance for
bicycle parking as well.
Andy Smith, party-in-interest, suggested the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and stated this proposal fails to achieve
compatibility. He urged Council to uphold the appeal.
OPPONENT PRESENTATION
Carolynne White, attorney for parties opposed to the appeal, argued a fair hearing occurred and
the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code.
Jeff Jones, Capstone Executive Vice-President, discussed the history of The Summit project and
stated this project was made viable only with the $5 million in TIF assistance. He stated this
parking project will ensure The Summit can fulfill its potential and stated the owner and tenants
at 1801 South College approached Capstone asking about shared parking on The Summit
property.
Mr. Zier objected to the previous statement as it was not in the record before the Hearing Officer.
Mr. Jones stated Capstone’s willingness to share parking on the site was discussed during the
hearing.
Mr. Zier argued any conversations held since the hearing are inadmissible.
Ms. White referenced pages 45, 46 and 47 of the hearing transcript during which time there was
discussion about Capstone’s willingness to share parking.
May 20, 2014
253
Mayor Weitkunat stated the referenced discussion was part of the record and allowed Mr. Jones
to continue.
Mr. Jones stated Capstone was willing to entertain a shared parking situation with the owner and
tenants of the building at 1801 South College; however, an agreement was never reached.
Additionally, he stated adequate storage parking is a key component of a transit-oriented
development and stated Capstone is ready to make the investment necessary to build this
structure and take parking pressure off of neighboring areas.
Ms. White stated one of the goals of the Midtown Plan for the TOD Overlay District is to
encourage the construction of parking structures. She argued the Land Use Code does not
contain specific view protections and stated vertical development is encouraged. Additionally,
Ms. White discussed compatibility and the requested modification for a 15 foot drive aisle, citing
a similarly sized drive aisle in a Denver parking garage.
Mr. Zier objected to Ms. White’s testimony regarding a parking garage at a Children’s Hospital
in Denver as being new evidence.
Ms. White replied this evidence was referenced at the hearing by the appellants and is offered in
response to new information submitted as part of the appeal.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman cited the Kaplan appeal which contains information regarding the
Children’s Hospital parking garage.
Mayor Weitkunat and Council opted to allow the testimony.
Ms. White stated external site constraints limit the footprint of the parking structure,
necessitating the reduction in size of one of the drive aisles. Ms. White went on to discuss the
ways in which pedestrian safety and Spring Creek buffers are addressed.
Brian Williamson, TST Engineering, stated there are three aspects to the plan which enhance the
Spring Creek buffer: a green screen on the south façade of the building, a dense corridor of
native plants and trees along the south side of the building, and a fee in lieu with the City for
future off-site improvements. He discussed the visual character of the project and stated all four
sides of the building were reviewed by City staff.
Ms. White concluded that the construction of parking structures is part of the goal of the TOD
Overlay zone and requested Council approval of the project.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Mr. Kaplan stated a quantification of the parking problem needs to occur after MAX is fully
operational, pedestrian connections are completed and assuming tenants had been made aware of
the TOD Overlay district and discouraged from bringing cars to the development.
May 20, 2014
254
Mr. Smith stated parking structures are not discouraged in the TOD; however, they are not to be
intended for exclusively private use. He stated he would have voted to oppose this project
should it have come before the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mr. Zier stated a parking problem exists because the developer was unable to secure off-site
parking; therefore, the issue is a self-created hardship.
OPPONENT REBUTTAL
Mr. Williamson discussed the pedestrian interface with the garage, stating there is a dedicated
eight-foot trail which runs along the eastern side of the property line and which is separated by
twenty feet from the garage face.
Ms. White clarified there was no requested modification with regard to the total number of
bicycle parking spaces.
Scott Martin, Desman and Associates, stated the drive aisle width planned for The Summit
garage rates at a level of service B, which is acceptable for long-term and turn-over parking.
Ms. White noted the flood channel is also an external restraint which led to the necessity for the
drive aisle width modification request. She discussed the package provided to tenants regarding
parking and mass transit and discussed the quantification of the parking issue. Mr. Jones is
willing to explore shared parking. There is no basis on which Council should overturn the
Hearing Officer’s decision.
Mayor Weitkunat requested additional information regarding the parking requirement for the
project when built and the current parking requirements for the TOD zone and the accessory use
definition. Gloss replied with a parking analysis of The Summit project versus other projects
outside and within the TOD zone. He stated 513 parking spaces would be required for this
project outside the TOD, and 358 parking spaces would be required for this project in the TOD.
He noted the proposed garage will provide more than the 537 spaces.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the project could have provided more parking spaces and/or a parking
garage at the time of submittal. Seth Lorson, City Planner, replied there were no minimum
parking requirements, nor maximum requirements, in the TOD at the time The Summit was
approved. At this point, a minimum of 358 spaces would be required.
With regard to the accessory use, Gloss replied an accessory use is incidental and subordinate to
the site’s principal use; in this case, staff determined the parking garage is an accessory use. An
accessory use typically applies to principal uses on the site and a staff recommendation was not
made with regard to limiting the use of the parking garage to The Summit only. There is no
absolute requirement the garage not be shared.
May 20, 2014
255
Councilmember Overbeck asked if the old Discount Tire parking lot is included in the existing
185 parking spaces. Lorson replied that is a temporary use and those spaces are not counted in
the 185.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the typical process for building construction within stream
zone buffer corridors. Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner, replied there has not been a
precedent for this type of development.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the clause regarding minimizing the obstruction of scenic views
was discussed. Ex replied staff had significant discussions about the standard and determined
the visual character of the site is already impacted by the existing parking lot and the upland and
riparian habitat the proposed buffer zone provides helps to minimize and mitigate that impact.
Additionally, staff determined the Spring Creek views are not impacted by the parking structure
itself.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about views to the sky from Spring Creek. Ex replied staff
determined the view of the sky is not impacted by the parking structure from Spring Creek.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the wall of the parking structure would impact views to the sky.
Councilmember Overbeck asked if the green screen has anything to do with temperature
mitigation. Ex replied that is an unintended benefit.
Councilmember Campana asked about the Land Use Code requirements for the Spring Creek
buffer. Ex replied the Land Use Code has both qualitative and quantitative ways to meet the
buffer standard.
Councilmember Campana expressed concern the character of Spring Creek will be changed by
having this structure next to it.
Councilmember Campana asked about the lease addendum provided to The Summit residents.
Mr. Jones replied the pre-lease addendum provided three options for residents: on-site parking,
on-campus parking with a commuter pass, or no parking needed. Once the on-site parking
spaces were reserved, no others were distributed.
Councilmember Campana questioned whether or not this use is operationally compatible with
the site and whether or not the project would have been approved with this parking structure
from the beginning. He stated there are other solutions to the parking issue, some of which are
behavioral. Additionally, Councilmember Campana expressed concern about the impact to the
Spring Creek buffer and whether or not this proposal aligns with the City’s objectives for the
Mason Corridor.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, that Council find
the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Overbeck,
Cunniff, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none.
May 20, 2014
256
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret the Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(i)(2) with
respect to obstruction of scenic views.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the apparent height of the building, when viewed from Spring
Creek, is higher than the context buildings. He noted that analysis has not been conducted;
therefore the Land Use Code has not properly considered the impact of that structure being built
within the 100 foot buffer zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked what views are being obstructed. Councilmember Cunniff replied
views of the foothills farther north from Spring Creek that would be obstructed by the fact this
building would be higher than other buildings around it. He also stated the sky is a natural
feature and views thereof would be obstructed from the stream corridor.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak argued the natural site has been redone a few times and now lacks
“natural” qualities. He stated he does not see the proposal as a detriment to that particular piece
of stream or to the park.
Councilmember Cunniff suggested the building could be designed so its apparent height does not
exceed the apparent height of the buildings behind it. He also cited the Land Use Code provision
regarding views from a natural feature.
Councilmember Campana stated there should be some transition of massing from the natural
area.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this section of Spring Creek has been degraded over time, particularly
given the railroad embankment and tunnels. She stated the proposal has offered positive
enhancements for the area.
Councilmember Campana suggested a smaller structure that would align more closely with what
the parking needs are in the TOD could achieve both the goals of a smaller structure with less
infringement and fewer spaces.
Councilmember Cunniff clarified the intent of his motion is to overturn the decision of the
Hearing Officer.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Cunniff and Poppaw. Nays: Campana,
Horak and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would like the building to be stepped back with a transition in
height.
May 20, 2014
257
Councilmember Campana supported a building height transition and a reduction in parking
spaces.
City Attorney Roy noted Council has the option to remand the decision to the Hearing Officer
and to ask the applicant about feasibility of these suggestions.
Ms. White stated interior ramping could potentially be a limiting factor in the proposed design
and requested that a condition consider building height as opposed to the number of parking
spaces.
Mr. Jones stated off-campus student housing developments are often parked at 95-105% and this
parking garage would provide only 69% parking for residents, or 81% with respect to bedrooms.
He expressed concern about reducing the number of parking spaces further. Additionally, Mr.
Jones stated the site constraints, including underground utilities, buffers and flood zone, have
forced the proposed building footprint. However, he stated they would be open to a good faith
effort to reduce the massing.
Councilmember Campana stated this project was never designed to compete with other off-
campus student housing complexes and compromising the City’s Land Use Code in order to
allow it to compete at every level does not make sense given its location in the TOD.
Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to overturn the
decision of the Hearing Officer because the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
the following Sections of the Land Use Code: 3.5(j) and 3.4.1(i)(2).
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if that is a better solution than attempting to reduce the size of the
parking structure. Councilmember Campana replied reducing the size of the parking structure is
a much better solution.
Councilmember Cunniff suggested the possibility of remanding the decision to the Hearing
Officer for a possible redesign.
City Attorney Roy noted a remand needs to include direction to the Hearing Officer from
Council as to the issues to be considered at the re-hearing.
Councilmembers Campana and Cunniff withdrew the previous motion.
Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to remand the
decision of the Hearing Officer in order for the Hearing Officer to receive and consider
additional information in regard to Land Use Code Sections 3.4.1(i)(2) and 3.5(j) and consider a
parking count closer to the minimum TOD zone parking requirement for this project and that the
building massing is decreased transitioning from Spring Creek.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this issue is the result of a parking problem and suggested it would
behoove the City to work on solutions and determine how this problem should be addressed.
May 20, 2014
258
Councilmember Cunniff stated this issue relates to upholding the letter and intent of the Land
Use Code.
Councilmember Campana agreed with Mayor Weitkunat but stated this project has not truly been
tested for what it was designed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Cunniff, Poppaw, Horak, and Campana.
Nays: Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy asked if any Councilmembers have any concerns about any of the other
provisions and whether they were properly interpreted and applied. There were no additional
concerns raised by Council.
Suspension of Rules
Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to suspend
the rules and extend the meeting past 12:00 a.m. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana and
Overbeck. Nays: Cunniff and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 066, 2014,
Amending Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code
Pertaining to Appeals Procedure, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading May 6, 2014, clarifies and incorporates
process improvements relating to the procedure for the hearing of appeals by City Council. Staff
contacted members of the public who expressed concerns about the current process and
provided them with copies of the proposed changes. No suggested changes were received. Staff
also met with the Board of Realtors legislative committee to review the proposed changes.
Comments from the committee were focused more on the ease in which an appeal can be filed
rather than the specific changes proposed in this Ordinance.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is extreme confusion regarding the location,
character and extent statute with regard to a home rule city. He requested the Ordinance be
amended to remove the disallowance of an appeal to Council on the issue.
May 20, 2014
259
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt
Ordinance No. 066, 2014, on Second Reading. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Campana,
Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 067, 2014,
Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code Pertaining
to Electric Rates, Fees and Charges Associated with the
Provision of Net-Metered Service, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 6, 2014, allows for certain
operational efficiencies to be realized by Utilities for the residential net-metering program
without negatively impacting the financial benefits of the program for participants. The current
accounting process for net-metering customers is manually-intensive. With the deployment of
the advanced metering infrastructure for all residential customers, it is now possible to provide
these customers with monthly information on their energy production and to implement an
automated monthly settlement process rather than the current annually settled process. In order
to ensure that no additional financial burden is placed on existing net-metering customers, it is
necessary to make the current implicit credit for distribution facilities charges explicit in the City
Code through the current rate Ordinance being presented.”
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated executing this Ordinance and installing a net
metering rate structure that does not have any regard to wholesale pricing or time of use pricing,
is a mistake after the expenditure for AMI.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt
Ordinance No. 067, 2014, on Second Reading. Yeas: Poppaw, Horak, Weitkunat, Campana,
Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
May 20, 2014
260
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:01 a.m., Wednesday.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
June 3, 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, June 3 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 there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, commended the presentation of the colors, announced
community events, and urged citizens to contribute to the Fort Collins Symphony. Additionally,
he discussed the need for affordable housing in the community.
Bill Milwenny, no address provided, commented on the District Attorney and Judicial Court.
Mary Lipscomb Lyons, Human Relations Commission, reported on an educational outreach
program on mental health.
Julie Mark, Environment Colorado, reported on her organization and its Climate Defenders
campaign to raise support for limiting carbon emissions for existing power plants.
Vanessa Fenley, Homeward 2020 Director, reported on the summer point-in-time count of Fort
Collins’ homeless individuals and requested volunteers for the project.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Horak spoke about his participation in the last Homeward 2020 point-in-time
count.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 6, 2014 Regular Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2014 Regular Council
meeting.
June 3, 2014
262
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2014 Adopted City Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, appropriates
$6,221,325 from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund. Nearly 80% of the funds
will be used for land conservation.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Capital Projects Fund for the North College Improvements - Conifer to Willox Project
and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the North College Improvements -
Vine to Conifer Project Into the North College Improvements - Conifer to Willox Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, appropriates
federal grant funds into the Capital Project Fund for the North College Improvements
Project - Conifer to Willox. City Council appropriated the final piece of funding necessary
for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer to Willox through budget revision
actions at the end of 2013. Since that time, City staff successfully secured additional
funding from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) via their Responsible
Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) program. This Ordinance completes
the final project budget with appropriations of new RAMP funding, previously secured
fiscal year 2015 federal grant funding, and savings from the recently completed North
College Improvements -- Vine to Conifer project.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2014 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming
Activities, Tourism Programming, and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, appropriates
$195,981, of which $83,619 is for 2014 Cultural Development and Programming Activities
(Fort Fund), $8,977 is for 2014 Tourism Programming (Fort Fund), and $103,385 is for
2014 Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) activities from Unanticipated
Revenue (Lodging Tax) and Prior Year Reserves (unspent appropriations) in the General
Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Lodging taxes for 2013 were estimated at $955,000 with
actual lodging tax revenues collected equaling $1,102,693 ($147,693 over estimate).
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2014, Amending Chapter 3 of The City Code to
Allow Spirituous Liquor Tastings and to Increase the Number of Days Tastings are
Permitted.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, amends the City
Code to allow for spirituous (liquor) tastings, similar to what is currently allowed for beer
and wine. This amendment will also extend the number of days tastings are permitted up to
the maximum 104 tasting events per year.
June 3, 2014
263
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2014, Designating the Landblom Property, 116
North Pearl Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, designates the
Landblom Property at 116 North Pearl Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the
property, Kenneth and Michele Christensen, are initiating this request.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2014, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property
to CCF Investments, LLC in Exchange for a New Park Site.
Ordinance No. 079, 2014, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014, conveys
property by Quit Claim Deed to CCF Investments, LLC. The City Property to be conveyed is
near East Vine Drive and Turnberry and is located in Waterfield PUD Second Filing. This land
was the location of a park in Waterfield Second Filing. The location of the park is moving
with the Third Filing of Waterfield. The current park site will be conveyed to the developer,
CCF Investments, LLC by Quit Claim Deed.
8. Items Relating to the Spring Competitive Process.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Projects in the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2014, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in
the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program.
Ordinance No. 080, 2014, appropriates the City’s FY2014 CDBG Entitlement Grant from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and CDBG Program Income
and transfers funds from FY2013 CDBG Reprogrammed funds and FY2012 CDBG
Unprogrammed funds for allocation in FY2014. Ordinance No. 081, 2014, appropriates the
City’s FY2014 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD and HOME Program
Income. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 20, 2014.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 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 request an additional appropriation of $150,000 to the Senior
Center Expansion Project. This additional funding was raised by the Senior Center
Expansion Committee. These additional funds will be put toward the cost of completing the
Core and Shell space as an Education Center/Auditorium, which will seat 120+ people with
state of the art technology and can be used for presentations, distance learning, seminars or
movies, and athletic events. Additional funds will be used for other building furnishings to
make this a World Class Facility.
June 3, 2014
264
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2014, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Benefits Fund for the Employee Wellness Center.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds from the Benefits Fund reserves for
facility/infrastructure enhancements to 256 West Mountain and start-up costs for the
Employee Wellness Center (commonly referred to as an Onsite Clinic). Advantages to
offering a Center include:
anticipated reduction in health care cost trends
greater ability to manage health risks through coaching and onsite disease management
program
integrated medical records
established medical home for employees and dependents making health information
available to providers
enhanced wellness efforts by supporting proactive health care management.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2014, Amending Section 28-17 of the City Code
Regarding Traffic Code Violation Penalties.
The purpose of this item is to reconcile two sections of the City Code setting the maximum
penalty for Traffic Code violations.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2014, Amending Article IV, Division 2 of Chapter 23
of the City Code Regarding Disposition of Real Property.
The purpose of this item is to amend Article IV of Chapter 23 of the City Code to authorize
the City Manager to approve certain leases on City-owned property. The existing language
in the City Code specifies that any disposition of real property, including leasing of real
property, must be approved by City Council, with the exception of property at the Fort
Collins-Loveland Airport.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2014, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of changes, additions and clarifications to the
Land Use Code that have been identified since the last update in July 2013.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2014, Authorizing Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection
with the Vine Drive and Shields Street Intersection Improvements Project.
The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent domain,
if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct improvements at the
Vine Drive and Shields Street intersection. The Vine Drive and Shields Street Intersection
Improvements Project will construct a single lane roundabout for safety and air quality
improvements at the intersection. The project is planned to begin construction in the spring
of 2015 and be completed in the fall of 2015. The project budget consists of both federal
and local funds. To construct these improvements, the City will need to acquire certain
June 3, 2014
265
property interests adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include right-of-way and
temporary easements from six property owners. Timely acquisition of the property is
necessary to meet the anticipated construction schedule. Staff fully intends to negotiate in
good faith with all affected owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be
completed prior to the start of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent
domain for all property acquisitions for the Project to comply with federal acquisition
requirements. Eminent domain action will be used only if such action is deemed necessary.
15. Items relating to Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and City Code Updates.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2014, Adopting a Water Supply Shortage Response
Plan.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2014, Amending Chapter 26, Article II, Division 6
of the City Code to Clarify Sections Relating to Water Conservation.
The purpose of these items is to update the City’s Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
that contains water restrictions to be put in place when a water shortage is anticipated, and to
make City Code changes regarding the waste of water and water restrictions. Revisions to
the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan are in response to employee and citizen feedback
received during the 2013 water restrictions and more recent community outreach. Highlights
include adding definitions and associated restrictions for food production, splash parks,
outdoor swimming pools and essential power-washing.
The City Code changes provide a clearer definition of the “waste of water,” extending
beyond irrigation use to service line and indoor leaks. In addition, hoses will require a hand-
activated hose nozzle for spraying impervious surfaces. This section will reference the
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how restrictions are put in place and lifted. Two
sections are out of date and are proposed to be deleted.
16. Resolution 2014-044 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort
Collins and Platte River Power Authority for Participation in a Joint Resource Planning
Case Study.
In support of the development of a new Climate Action Plan, Fort Collins Utilities and Platte
River Power Authority (Platte River) have developed the attached Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA). The intent of the Agreement is to define the terms for Platte River to
provide electric supply network modeling assistance to the City. The models will identify a
potential mix of electric resources and the associated costs to help the City achieve a 20%
reduction of greenhouse Gases (GHG) below 2005 levels by 2020, 80% reduction by 2030,
and 100% reduction by 2050.
Overall Climate Action Plan reduction measures include decreases in emissions related to
transportation, building energy use, waste management and electricity. The focus of the
work detailed in this IGA is to provide modeling to define the necessary changes to the
City’s existing electric energy supply that will be required in order to achieve stated GHG
June 3, 2014
266
reductions. The modeling done by PRPA will identify the portfolio of resources needed and
their associated costs.
17. Resolution 2014-045 Approving an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District Establishing
the Poudre Fire Authority.
The purpose of this item is to approve the revised Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
which forms the Poudre Fire Authority and the associated Revenue Allocation Formula
(RAF) which allocates a share of City revenue toward the provision of fire and rescue
services within Fort Collins.
18. Resolution 2014-046 Adopting the Fort Collins River Downtown Redevelopment Zone
Design Guidelines.
The purpose of this item is to adopt the Design Guidelines for the River Downtown
Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone district which will act as supplement to the new standards that
are to be codified in the Land Use Code.
19. Resolution 2014-047 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado
Department of Transportation for Reimbursement of Wetland Mitigation Costs.
The purpose of this item authorizes the City to enter into an agreement to receive $99,450
from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for wetland mitigation. Four local
CDOT road projects impact a total of 1.02 acres of wetlands. These impacts must be
mitigated through payment for the creation of additional wetlands of equal size and type.
CDOT desires to keep the mitigation effort local and proposes to reimburse the City for
wetlands created within the Poudre River floodplain.
20. Resolution 2014-048 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Stormwater
Utilities Account to Commission an Artist to Create Art for the West Vine Basin Project.
The purpose of this item is to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places
Stormwater Utility Account to commission an artist to create art for the Art in Public Places
West Vine Basin Project. The expenditures of $24,960 will be for design, materials,
fabrication, installation and contingency for an artist to create an interactive and interpretive
plaza at the West Vine Basin site.
***END CONSENT***
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item Nos. 13 and 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 086,
2014, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code and Resolution 2014-046 Adopting the
Fort Collins River Downtown Redevelopment Zone Design Guidelines from the Consent
Calendar.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 17, Resolution 2014-045 Approving
an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort Collins and
June 3, 2014
267
the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District Establishing the Poudre Fire Authority from the
Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat,
Campana, Troxell, Overbeck and Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Rick Richter, Infrastructure Services Director, reported the Xcel pipeline project is ahead of
schedule. He reported on summer construction projects throughout the city.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked how road closure information is visually displayed on the City’s
web page. Richter replied each closure is mapped and detailed information regarding the closure
is provided.
Councilmember Cunniff asked how staff plans to deal with drivers using unofficial detour routes
through neighborhoods. Richter replied flaggers are used as necessary at neighborhood
entrances.
City Manager Atteberry reported on the competitive process for the new Utilities Executive
Director.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Cunniff reported on a tour of the mall deconstruction process.
Mayor Weitkunat reported on a joint meeting with Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Larimer
County. Additionally, she reported on the Platte River Power Authority monthly meeting and
the Airport Steering Committee meeting.
Ordinance No. 086, 2014,
Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt a variety of changes, additions and clarifications to the Land
Use Code that have been identified since the last update in July 2013.
June 3, 2014
268
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been
recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that
have been identified since the last update. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve
implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and “user-
friendliness” of the Code.
The proposed revisions (except for some late changes to Sections 2.13.1, 2.13.2 and 2.13.10
which will be considered by the Board prior to City Council’s Second Reading of Ordinance No.
086, 2014) were considered by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board at its May 8, 2014 regular
meeting. All of the proposed revisions included in the Ordinance except as mentioned above
have received unanimous approval from the P&Z Board.
While there are a high number of revisions compared to previous years, there are three new
additions to the Land Use Code that are highlighted for Council’s benefit.
• A new Site Plan Advisory Review process is being added to address development projects
associated with other governmental agencies rather than relying on state statutes.
(Ordinance Section 2, Item Number 975.)
• A comprehensive approach to allowing and regulating three distinct sizes of Solar
Gardens is being added in response to the City’s new Solar Power Purchase Program.
(33 Ordinance Sections, Item Number 967.)
• In the River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone, the new development standards
have been significantly revised and improved in order to codify the findings R-D-R
Design Standards and Guidelines project that is reaching its conclusion. (Ordinance
Section 64, Item Number 987.)
During the Board’s deliberation, the following topic was discussed individually:
Addition of Permitted Use: Ordinance Section 1. Item number 976
This revision adds a purpose statement and two applicability statements to provide clarification
about the process. Also, where an applicant is requesting adding a use within or adjacent to an
existing residential neighborhood, two, not one, neighborhood meetings would be required at
specific time points in the process.
Three members of the public addressed the Board and provided letters to supplement their
testimony. While these speakers supported the proposed code revisions in draft Ordinance, they
went on to ask the Board to also consider eliminating the Addition of Permitted Use process in
nine zone districts on the basis that these districts feature residential land uses and, as such, are
not appropriate locations for requests for an Addition of Permitted Use. These speakers
represented that the A.P.U. process offers a degree of land use flexibility that may be more
suited for non-residential zones but contained the risk of unpredictability for residential zones.
June 3, 2014
269
The Board discussed this issue and decided that the changes suggested by the public input went
beyond the scope of the 2014 annual update to the Land Use Code. The Board indicated that in
the fall of 2013, a P&Z sub-committee, along with interested citizens, explored a wide range of
issues associated with the Addition of Permitted Use process and determined that the minor
changes as contained in the draft Ordinance were reasonable. Further, the Board indicated
that, in general, the A.P.U. process is working and effectively balances land use flexibility with
predictability on a case-by-case basis.
The Board considered the public input and, after deliberation, decided to not offer any changes
to the draft Ordinance as it relates to the Addition of Permitted Use process but added that the
topic bears further discussion at an upcoming work session.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Code revision number 982 provides for greater opportunities for Unlimited Indoor Recreation
Establishments (greater than 5,000 square feet) and Limited Indoor Recreation Establishments
(under 5,000 square feet) by allowing these uses to now go into the H-C, Harmony Corridor
zone, but only as secondary uses. Unlimited Indoor Recreation uses include large-scale
gymnasium-type facilities such as for tennis, basketball, swimming, indoor soccer and the like.
Limited Indoor Recreation uses include yoga studios, exercise clubs, dance studios, martial arts
schools, and arts or crafts studios. This change allows the Land Use Code to respond to
changing trends and conditions by providing for a wider distribution of facilities that promote
recreation, health and wellness across the entire City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Code revision number 967 enacts a comprehensive approach to allowing solar installations of
three varying sizes on a city-wide basis in 24 zone districts. The City of Fort Collins recently
adopted the Solar Power Purchase Program (SP
3
), which will buy about 5 megawatts (MW) of
new, locally-installed solar capacity to help meet the community’s renewable energy
commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard. With new opportunities for
residents and businesses to take advantage of the SP
3
and other solar program elements, as well
as growing interest in solar energy sources in general, there will now be three new land uses,
along with new rules and provisions, for small, medium and large-scale solar energy systems.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
All of the proposed changes (except those changes to Sections 2.13.1, 2.13.2 and 2.13.10 which
will be considered by the Board prior to second reading) have been discussed and refined in
conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Board at various work sessions between February
and May of this year. On May 8, 2014, at the regular meeting of the P&Z Board, the Board
considered the proposed revisions and voted unanimously to recommend to City Council
approval of all the changes.
In addition, the revisions to the R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District were
specifically discussed with other boards and commissions because these changes codify the
findings of a separate design project. Referred to as the Fort Collins R-D-R River Downtown
June 3, 2014
270
Redevelopment Zone District Design Standards and Guidelines, the project resulted in
significant revisions to the development standards within this district. Both the proposed
standards and guidelines were presented to the following:
Landmark Preservation Commission
Downtown Development Authority
Parking Advisory Board
Economic Advisory Commission
Natural Resources Advisory Board
The design standards are codified in the Ordinance. The supplemental Design Guidelines,
however, which contain images and suggestions, are being brought forward for Council
consideration as a separate Resolution (Attachment 2 in Agenda Item 17, Resolution 2014-046
Adopting the Fort Collins River Downtown Redevelopment Zone Design Guidelines).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed revisions to the Addition of Permitted Use were derived from discussions among
the Planning and Zoning Board ad-hoc sub-committee and interested citizens.”
Councilmember Cunniff asked how these amendments are related to the addition of a permitted
use (APU) process and expressed concern regarding the fact this item was on the Consent
Calendar. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Director, replied
the APU process has been discussed in depth for the past several months; however, this set of
annual Land Use Code changes does not include the APU zoning district changes. She stated the
Planning and Zoning Board will be reconsidering the issue.
Mayor Weitkunat requested information regarding the annual Land Use Code update process.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied the general purpose of the annual changes is to revise the
Land Use Code with changes that have accumulated over the past year. He noted larger
substantive issues may be presented to Council separately.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern the Land Use Code is not being
followed. Additionally, he suggested a Land Use Code and City Code amendment that would
allow, by citizen initiative, changes to the Land Use Code to be considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, expressed concern regarding the APU section of the Land
Use Code stating the process should be prohibited in residential zone districts.
Meg Dunn, 720 West Oak, opposed the use of the APU process in single-family residential zone
districts.
Gina Jannett, 730 West Oak, suggested the applicability of the APU process should be restricted
in residential zone districts given the precedent its use could set.
June 3, 2014
271
Bill Whitely, 618 West Mountain, agreed with the previous speakers and stated the APU process
is frightening for residents of lower-density neighborhoods.
Councilmember Cunniff asked how this Ordinance would interact with the Planning and Zoning
Board modifying the APU section. Shepard replied the Planning and Zoning Board will discuss
the topic at its next work session and, should it direct staff to move forward, some options will be
crafted for a public outreach effort. Draft language would then be presented at a subsequent
work session and ultimately, the Board would need to adopt any changes to the Land Use Code
at a formal meeting, after which an Ordinance would be presented for Council consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 086, 2014, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the process outlined by staff to make changes to the APU process
makes sense and suggested a timeline be crafted by the City Manager.
Councilmember Cunniff requested the timeline prior to Second Reading of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Campana stated the City Plan is sometimes ahead of the Land Use Code and
noted the APU process has been a tool used to aid in achieving the goals and visions of City Plan
prior to the Land Use Code catching up with it.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell, Overbeck,
Poppaw and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2014-046 Adopting the Fort Collins River
Downtown Redevelopment Zone Design Guidelines, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the Design Guidelines for the River Downtown
Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone district which will act as supplement to the new standards that are
to be codified in the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The River Downtown Redevelopment Zone Design Standards and Guidelines Project was
presented to the City Council at its work session on April 8, 2014. Based on Council feedback,
emphasis was added that parking lots and parking structures are inappropriate along the
Poudre River. Generally, Council provided positive comments and directed staff to move
forward with a Resolution.
June 3, 2014
272
The regulatory approach for both redevelopment and new development in the River Downtown
Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone consists of standards that are to be codified by Ordinance in the
2014 Land Use Code Update and guidelines which are to be adopted by Resolution in a
supplemental document referred to as Design Guidelines. This Resolution pertains to the
Design Guidelines.
The River Downtown Redevelopment (R-D-R) zone currently includes a set of development
standards that were originally adopted with City Plan and the Land Use Code in 1997. Since
then, several developments have been brought forward highlighting the need to take additional
steps to preserve the distinctive character as the commercial and industrial core of our City.
City Plan Update - 2011 identified two action items relating to evaluating and adding design
standards to improve the set of standards to better address neighborhood, site and building
attributes.
The R-D-R zone district includes the original town site and the historic commercial and
industrial core of our City. It is characterized by a wide variety of buildings that have served a
multitude of uses over the decades. Ranchway Feeds, Harmony Mill, Feeders Supply and the
former electrical generating plant (now the CSU Powerhouse) are all unique buildings that
reflect our history as the region’s center of commerce. The primary attribute of the area, the
Poudre River, historically attracted water-powered agricultural-related industry and is now the
premier natural feature for our City. A continuous change with railroad lines, two state
highways, and the general expansion of the Downtown core has resulted in a range of
architectural styles that are the essence of today’s mixed character and charm.
The proposed new Design Guidelines are specifically intended to maintain this ag-industrial
character with the compatibility of redevelopment. The existing standards that govern the
relationship with the Poudre River will be retained as these standards have been found to be
effective at protecting the natural riparian features while allowing development to occur in a
sensitive fashion.
The proposed new Design Guidelines build upon previous efforts that address this area,
particularly the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Plan (2000) and the Downtown River
District Streetscape Improvements Project (2008). These two efforts formed the basis of the
public improvements along Linden Street that were completed in March 2012. The new
standards call for new development to complement these public improvements.
The proposed new guidelines are also in alignment with the proposed new design for a fully-
improved Willow Street. The Engineering Department is currently overseeing a design project
for Willow Street between North College Avenue and Linden Street and the projects have been in
close coordination. The project has also been in close coordination with the Poudre River
Downtown Project being coordinated by the Parks and Natural Resources Departments.
It is noteworthy that this project is not a land use plan. It is not an up-zoning or down-zoning.
Nor are there any changes to maximum allowable height standards. The proposed guidelines
address how building height can be addressed in redevelopment projects based on the context of
the site and proximity to historic structures. The fundamental approach is context-based site
June 3, 2014
273
analysis and sensitive design that is complementary to the area’s character.
The proposed guidelines acknowledge that this area has an ag-industrial character that is not as
refined as the more ornate portion of the Old Town Historic District across Jefferson Street with
its retail and entertainment activity and architectural embellishments. In contrast, the R-D-R
zone features commercial and industrial uses where building forms are simpler and less detailed.
Industrial activities such as manufacturing and outside storage and truck docks are part of the
character.
In summary, the Design Guidelines implement the action plan from City Plan Update - 2011 in
order to respect the ag-industrial character of the area. They enhance, clarify and update the
existing standards that govern the R-D-R zone district.
If authorized, the new standards will be codified directly into the Land Use Code for maximum
effectiveness. The Design Guidelines, however, will include explanatory text, graphics, and
images that will supplement the regulatory approach for the benefit of land owners, architects
and developers in order to provide more detail and remove ambiguity. Overall, the Design
Guidelines are anticipated to result in an improved development review process for all interested
parties.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no direct financial or economic impacts associated with the adoption of the Design
Guidelines. Indirectly, however, the potential revitalization of the area could create greater
internal economic activity without having to depend on customers and patrons crossing Jefferson
Street. Decreasing dependence on spillover activity from Downtown would create a positive
economic outcome for the immediate area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no direct environmental impacts associated with the adoption the Design Guidelines.
Indirectly, however, the emphasis on use of durable materials would lead to longer life cycles for
new structures.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this item at its work session on January 3, 2014. The
Planning and Zoning Board unanimously approved the 2014 Land Use Code Update, which
contains the standards upon which the guidelines are based, at its regular meeting on May 8,
2014.
Board and Commission Outreach:
- Work Sessions - Landmark Preservation Commission (June 26, October 23, and December 11,
2013)
June 3, 2014
274
- Work Session with Planning and Zoning Board (January 3, 2014)
- Downtown Development Authority (February 13, 2014)
- Parking Advisory Board (March 10, 2014)
- Natural Resources Advisory Board (March 19, 2014)
- Economic Advisory Commission (April 17, 2014).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
- Tour of subject areas with consultant and stakeholder group (June 26, 2013)
- Poudre River Project Open House, Lincoln Center (June 26, 2013)
- Public Workshops (October 3, 2013, November 13, 2013 and April 30, 2014)
- Website: http://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/otrd-design-standards-and-guidelines.php
(October, 2013)
- Poster and table at joint Planning and Transportation open house, Museum and Discovery
Science Center (February 20, 2014)
- Correspondence with representatives of Save the Poudre and Protect Our Old Town Homes
(Ongoing).”
Councilmember Cunniff asked about this plan’s consideration of design compatibility with
respect to retaining walls and other structures. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied the language
was amended to be more specific regarding development along the River such that there would
be a prohibition on parking garages, parking structures, and parking lots as well as retaining
walls.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2014-046. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw, Cunniff and
Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2014-049
Amending the West Nile Virus Management Policy and Providing Direction to the City
Manager Regarding Implementation of the Program, Adopted Option B
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt enhancements to the West Nile Virus Management Program.
Staff is presenting two options for Council consideration; both would update the West Nile Virus
Management Policy. The program changes being offered include dividing the City into
operational zones, considering changes to the program response guidelines (operational
practices), implementing a limited business opt-out and maintaining a residential opt-out
program based on the pesticide sensitivity registry maintained by the Colorado Department of
Agriculture, and eliminating the Advisory Panel that advises the City Manager on adulticide
recommendations.
June 3, 2014
275
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On May 6, 2014 the City Council reviewed options to enhance the West Nile Virus Management
Plan. Options presented to Council came from the West Nile Virus (WNV) Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and from staff after review of the 2013 season and historical data.
West Nile virus (WNV) has been in Colorado since 2002 and the threat of disease transmission is
now an annual concern. WNV is a disease transmitted to humans by Culex mosquitoes, which are
the vector (source of transmission). WNV-infected mosquitoes infect birds, which can then be bitten
by many uninfected mosquitoes, greatly amplifying vector abundance. Most people infected with
WNV will have no symptoms. About 1 in 5 (20-25 percent) people who are infected will develop a
fever with other symptoms. Less than 1 percent of people who are infected will develop a serious
neurologic illness such as encephalitis or meningitis (inflammation of the brain or surrounding
tissues). (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Vector-Borne Diseases (CDC
DVBD) information).
Fort Collins utilizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to address WNV. IPM consists of a comprehensive
series of evaluations, decisions and controls to pest management with the goal of providing the
safest, most effective, most economical, and sustained remedy. IPM reduces the risk from pests
while also reducing the risk from the overuse or inappropriate use of hazardous chemical pest-
control products. Every year the City convenes a WNV Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
review the previous season’s activities and recommend modifications to the WNV Management
Program Policy. This plan, do, check, act (PDCA) cycle instills continuous improvement in the
WNV Management Program.
Opt-out program
City Council directed staff to maintain the opt-out program for residents on the pesticide sensitivity
registry and to develop an opt-out program for businesses able to demonstrate a sustained
economic impact. The State of Colorado Department of Agriculture maintains the pesticide
sensitivity registry; to be placed on the registry a certificate must be signed by a licensed physician
stating that an individual has a medical condition that makes him/her sensitive to pesticides. Fort
Collins has about 15 homes listed on the pesticide sensitivity registry. Those homes are, depending
on weather conditions, provided a 300 to 500 foot buffer from where spraying occurs. Staff works
with Colorado Mosquito Control (CMC), the City’s contractor, to ensure these pesticide sensitive
residents are protected.
A business opt-out program was recommended by members of the TAC. The TAC representative for
urban agriculture described concerns of food producers, namely that covering even small farms to
protect them from being sprayed with a pesticide is not feasible. Fort Collins has twenty six (26)
registered community supported agriculture (CSA) farms producing fruit, vegetables and herbs for
sale at Farmers Market, wholesale and farm stand. TAC members also described a similar
challenge in covering bee hives used both for personal and commercial use. Bees are susceptible to
the pesticide used in an adulticide application, but the City attempts to minimize impacts to bees by
June 3, 2014
276
spraying after dusk when most bees are in the hive. Staff is also aware that some research at CSU
may be impacted by spraying near campus buildings. An opt-out for registered businesses -
agriculture, beekeepers, and research facilities - would prevent interference with those businesses.
This option would also require each business to participate in source reduction and personal
protection education.
Businesses seeking to opt-out would need to demonstrate a direct, long-term financial hardship
from the pesticide application in order to exercise the option - the intent of the opt-out is to provide
relief from financial losses. While additional work would be needed to develop the exact
parameters of this opt-out, the intent is to recognize concerns about impacting scientific research
and anecdotal evidence that consumers are less willing to purchase produce when they know that a
farm has been subject to a pesticide application. This option would also require an additional
technician to perform inspection and education throughout the annual season. Some TAC members
questioned whether the commercial interests of a business outweigh increasing disease
transmission risks to entire neighborhoods of the city.
Zones
City Council supported the concept of using zones. Staff plans to begin with four (4) zones in 2014
and work with a statistician to determine the most effective zone program for future seasons.
Breaking the City into smaller areas using topographic and historical program data will create a
more effective WNV Management Program. Historical information indicates that mosquito activity
is usually highest beginning in the southeast of Fort Collins and along the eastern border, near I-
25. A zone approach could allow for additional public information, larval control, source reduction
efforts, and adulticide intervention in these areas of highest disease activity.
The TAC has started to work with a Colorado State University (CSU) statistician who may be able
to assist in designing the optimal number and size of zones to ensure that the zones are small but
still have enough traps within each zone to be statistically relevant in the vector index calculation.
The City would be able to affect the number and size of zones based on the number of traps in the
field - more traps in the data network could result in more, smaller zones.
Adopting zones would apply to all aspects of the program, not just pesticide application, allowing
targeted communication and larval control in areas where the data network demonstrates higher
human health risks. The four zones that staff plans to adopt would reduce the area subject to an
adulticide application, focus the program on areas with a high vector index number, and allow for
prompt response to an increased disease transmission risk.
Human Case Threshold
Human cases are a lagging indicator because reports to public health officials by a doctor follow
significantly after a person is bitten by an infected mosquito. Human cases of transmission of WNV
are reported three to four (3-4) weeks after disease onset or four to five (4-5) weeks after
transmission. Estimates from reviewing individual cases indicate that, on average, cases were
reported 22 days after symptoms began and symptoms begin about one week after infection.
Spraying in 2013 occurred about two weeks after the majority of reported individuals were
June 3, 2014
277
infected, but before the majority of cases were reported. This delay in the time from infection to
reporting the infection and City action can have serious public health impact. Human case
identification lags more than other information - the vector index is calculated weekly and so is a
better estimation of virus risk. The vector index takes into account mosquito abundance, infection
rates of the trapped mosquitoes and the location of infected mosquitoes.
The program response (operational) guidelines for Level III (peak season intervention) currently
require that:
• More than one human case being reported per week in Fort Collins
- OR –
• More than one positive human blood donor reported for the season.
-AND-
• Culex mosquito populations increasing and at or above historical average by 1 standard
deviation for that time period
- OR –
• Mosquito infection rates of > 3.0 per thousand (0.3 percent) and increasing
- OR –
• Vector index > 0.75 and increasing
Reconciling Zones with a Human Case Threshold
Taken in context of the direction provided by City Council on May 6, 2014 regarding Zones and
the Human Case Threshold, retaining human cases, as discussed above, may compromise the
effectiveness of the using a treatment-zone approach.
Among the motions that City Council approved on May 6:
Four (4) zone approach to monitoring and spraying for the virus
Retaining the 0.75 vector index
Among the options that the Council declined to adopt on May 6:
Removing human cases from the program response guidelines
o More than one (at least two) human cases per week must be present to meet the
threshold for an adulticide application in a given week
Combined, these actions mean that staff will break the community into four (4) zones – staff
proposes along College Avenue and Drake Road in 2014 – but also apply all of the program
response guideline thresholds to each zone. In other words – each zone would need to have two
June 3, 2014
278
human cases in a single week and a vector index above 0.75 before it would reach the outbreak
threshold and support an adulticide application recommendation.
This means the likelihood of achieving a threshold necessary for emergency intervention, or
adulticiding, is highly unlikely. The vector index could go well above the 0.75 threshold, as
happened in 2013, and yet there could be no emergency application to break the disease
transmission cycle unless human cases has been reported. Staff recommends using the vector
index as the primary threshold for adulticide application because human cases are a lagging
indicator, while the vector index uses real-time information gathered through mosquito
monitoring and testing to estimate the average number of infected mosquitoes. The vector index
provides an estimate of the risk of a WNV outbreak and allows the City to take action before an
outbreak (i.e. broad human cases) occurs.
The changes recommended by staff on May 6 were intertwined and when broken apart cannot be
reconciled into an approach that staff supports. Staff apologizes for not clarifying the
irreconcilability in this context before/during the meeting. In order to more effectively use the
data provided through the City’s extensive trapping network, staff strongly encourages the
removal of human cases from the thresholds. Staff believes this approach – utilizing the vector
index in four zones and including the opt-out provisions for health-related and business impacts
– provides more effective West Nile virus control in smaller sections of town.
If Council is inclined to adopt the staff recommendation to eliminate the human case threshold,
additional direction should be provided to the City Manager regarding amending the program
response guidelines accordingly.
Advisory Panel
The 2008 WNV Management Program and Policy stipulate the use of a three-member Advisory
Panel in weekly review of in-season data and in evaluating the Larimer County Health
Department's recommendations for an adulticide application. In recent years the Technical
Advisory Committee has met during the offseason to review the City's response to WNV and
recommend program improvements. The Advisory Panel is provided weekly data gathered from the
City's trapping network. Panel members have discussed that there is little room to interpret the data
provided other than to either concur with a recommendation to spray or to reject the
recommendation.
West Nile Virus Management Policies Option A includes continuing the Advisory Panel but
expanding the membership from three (3) to five (5) members. The Advisory Panel would continue
to review data on a weekly basis in season and provide its analysis of the Larimer Health
Director’s recommendations to spray. Option B would eliminate the Advisory Panel and instead
use a checklist of thresholds to consider whether the City should adulticide. Staff recommends
Council adopt Option B eliminating the Advisory Panel. Modifications to the program response
guidelines have removed a great deal of discretion from the Advisory Panel, some members who
participated in the TAC review of the 2013 WNV season noted that their review of a spray
recommendation had been reduced by improvements to the operational thresholds.
June 3, 2014
279
The primary functions of the Advisory Panel under the 2008 WNV Management Policy were
additional evaluation of seasonal data and communication to Boards. In the 2013 season review,
the TAC recommended that staff promote transparency and communication by publishing the
weekly in-season WNV data on the City website along with recommendations to spray received
from the Larimer County Health Director and a checklist of the program response thresholds.
These steps promote transparency and fill the communication role that would be vacated by the
elimination of the Advisory Panel.
The WNV TAC will continue to meet each off-season to review the City's operations and propose
enhancements. The TAC provides recommendations to the City Manager. Both policy options
include language creating a more formal TAC membership by incorporating a specific number of
members, member affiliation, and role for the committee. While not replacing the Advisory Panel or
its in-season role, the TAC serves an important role in advising best practice-driven program
improvements. Staff proposes that the TAC membership reflect several constituencies, including,
but not limited to, community members, health care, and science.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Additional staffing is needed to implement the business opt-out program educational outreach.
Colorado Mosquito Control, the City’s contractor, will handle this addition to the WNV
Management Program and staff will address budget modification.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Applying a pesticide in some or all of Fort Collins represents an environmental impact. These
WNV management program enhancements are anticipated to reduce the need for and extent of
an adulticide application, in addition to a larvicide application, in the City. The larval control
product used is deemed to have a low environmental impact, but it does reduce the abundance of
mosquito larvae which has a cascading impact on species which feed upon larvae and adult
mosquitoes. The aduticide product used may have broader impacts on agricultural produce,
honey bees and pesticide-sensitive populations. Staff works to minimize the impact of spraying
through the steps of the IPM approach.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff has presented the TAC’s 2014 season recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Board,
Air Quality Advisory Board and to the Natural Resources Advisory Board for comment.”
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, discussed the City’s public outreach process
regarding West Nile reduction and discussed the options available to Council regarding the policy
language. Additionally, he discussed staff recommendations regarding program response
guidelines, a 4-zone approach, and opt-out provisions.
Mary Lipscomb Lyons, 1327 Catalpa, urged Council to not delay spraying until human West Nile
cases are presented.
June 3, 2014
280
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, opposed the use of permethrin as it is a known toxin and carcinogen.
Daisy Williams, Mill Creek Court, stated she has an organic farm and opposed the use of
permethrin for adulticide spraying. She supported the use of human cases as part of the program
response guidelines.
Mark Richards, Larimer County Board of Health President, supported the staff recommendation to
remove human cases as a threshold for control measures.
Bruce Cooper, Larimer County Health District Medical Director, supported the staff
recommendation to remove human cases as a threshold for control measures.
Meghan Williams, Spring Kite Farm, supported increasing the number of indicators necessary
before adulticide spraying occurs.
Chet Moore, Mansfield Drive, stated the human case indicator is not a helpful tool.
Kim Meyer Lee, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, suggested the use of
mosquito trap data and encouraged Council to remove human cases as a criterion for spraying.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated permethrin is a health hazard and opposed relying solely
on physician data.
Dan Sapiema, Health District of Northern Larimer County, discussed the significant health risk
posed by West Nile and encouraged Council to remove human cases as a criterion for spraying.
Keri March King, 3206 Sweeney Street, opposed adulticide spraying and encouraged Council to
allow individuals to opt out of spraying.
Dana Kunze, Fort Collins resident, suggested Council consider applying the vector index data at the
zone level while retaining citywide human cases as a threshold for spraying in any particular zone.
Simon Schaad, 624 Yarrow Circle, opposed adulticide spraying but urged Council to support
Option A of its choices.
Scott Sorsederber, Fort Collins resident, suggested the adulticide chemicals have not been applied
as directed.
Trina Corey, 606 Holyoke Court, stated she had Lyme disease and expressed concern regarding the
impacts of adulticide spraying.
Eric Levine, Fort Collins resident, supported the eradication of larval mosquitos.
Donna Dundon, 3101 Worthington Avenue, stated she had West Nile last year following spraying
in her neighborhood. She questioned the long-term effects of adulticide spraying.
June 3, 2014
281
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked the Larimer County Board of Health official why the County is not
dealing with this issue as the City has no function or department for health. Mr. Richards replied he
has no personal experience with the history of the issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if Mr. Richards could make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Richards replied in the affirmative; however, he noted his group does not have
rule-making authority.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if the Board of Health makes recommendations to the Commissioners
about larviciding outside city limits. Mr. Richards replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked who receives recommendations from Dr. LeBailly. Ms. Meyer Lee
replied the recommendations are conveyed to County officials, as well as to the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak questioned why the City has become responsible for carrying out a County
function. Mr. Richards replied the City and County could negotiate to return that responsibility to
the County; however, the City is currently responsible at this time.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about spraying by homeowner associations. Mike Calhoon, Parks
Supervisor, replied the HOAs are included in the City’s distribution list for adulticide notification,
and, according to the Department of Agriculture, it is the applicator’s responsibility to not
overspray, or have a double application.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if it would be possible to codify a requirement that HOAs notify the
City when they plan adulticide operations. Calhoon replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Cunniff asked what the City will implement in terms of public notification and
spray tracking. Calhoon replied a new platform has been developed for spray tracking in order to
more effectively and efficiently provide information to residents.
The Council and Calhoon had a discussion regarding staff’s interpretation of “long-term financial
impact.” Calhoon noted that definition would apply to businesses whose business will be affected
longer than just the day or week of the application.
Calhoon discussed the rules and laws by which applicators are to abide and stated the product used
by the City for adulticiding is the most benign one available.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked about the boundary extensions for spraying. Calhoon replied the
boundary has been extended to the north and east sides of town, primarily in agricultural buffer
areas.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if the County participates in a monetary fashion with spraying.
Calhoon replied in the negative.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested additional information regarding the educational campaign for
citizens. Calhoon replied the program has already begun with utility bill inserts, door hangers,
June 3, 2014
282
banners around town, magazine and newspaper articles, program manual, and videos.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested recommendations for gardens that get sprayed. Calhoon replied
gardens can be covered prior to spraying, or, if sprayed, produce should be washed with soap and
water prior to consumption.
Councilmember Campana thanked the individuals who spoke and stated there is an opportunity for
discussion with the County Commissioners regarding the topic; however, he stated he would like to
continue to have local control over spraying within city limits. He commended Calhoon on his
work with the program and thanked the Technical Advisory Committee for its work.
Councilmember Overbeck expressed concern the educational campaign has not addressed standing
water and other mosquito breeding attractors. Calhoon replied a public service announcement will
go out tomorrow.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt Resolution
2014-049, with Option B, amending Option B to use the language from Option A which discusses
human case consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated the vector index is not a perfect indicator; thus the need for the human
case indicator, which is the only other indicator available to aid in balancing the risk.
City Attorney Roy read recommended language to accommodate Mayor Pro Tem Horak’s
amendment.
Councilmember Cunniff requested an amendment to the motion to add language to the Resolution
directing the City Manager to develop policies and procedures to eliminate City application of
adulticide in areas such as HOAs where private adulticide application has previously occurred
during mosquito season. Mayor Pro Tem Horak accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Campana noted there are no perfect indicators; however, the vector index
calculates infected mosquitos and common sense states that would be an indicator of the potential
for increased human cases. He stated he would like the human cases to not be required as the risk
from pesticides is less than that from West Nile.
Mayor Weitkunat discussed the fact the human cases are lagging indicators and asked Calhoon if he
recommends human cases be a required indicator. Calhoon replied human cases have been used in
the past but agreed it is a lagging indicator and stated staff is recommending the human cases
indicator be removed.
Councilmember Campana asked if there are other indicators available other than the vector index
and human cases. Calhoon replied Dr. Moore has been working on a degree day indicator;
however, the vector index is currently the best indicator and is recommended by the CDC.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he would be amenable to make the number of human cases one or
more rather than more than one.
June 3, 2014
283
Councilmember Cunniff noted spraying does not actually cure the West Nile epidemic.
Mayor Weitkunat stated more than one case is not necessarily an indicator.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak amended his motion to replace “more than one” with “one or more” human
cases. He asked if this policy could lead to spraying earlier in the year. Calhoon replied he would
anticipate spraying to be earlier.
City Attorney Roy clarified the amendment made by Mayor Pro Tem Horak has not yet been
seconded; therefore, more than one human case are still currently required.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Overbeck, Poppaw, Cunniff and Horak. Nays:
Campana, Weitkunat and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2014-033
Superseding Resolution 2013-049 and Authorizing the Execution of a
Revised First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing
the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve a revised First Amendment to the Boxelder Basin Regional
Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) in place of the First Amendment that was authorized by the
adoption of Resolution 2014-049. The Revised First Amendment:
• Authorizes the BBRSA to determine and make minor revisions to properties within the
Service Area of the BBRSA by designating areas as “non-tributary areas”, and to grant fee
credits to other areas within the Service Area;
• Authorizes the BBRSA to accept loans from the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB) to fund the design and construction of the remaining regional stormwater projects;
and,
• Establishes a sunset provision that terminates collection of stormwater fees and charges
either twenty years after the effective date of this Amendment, provided there is agreement
regarding the operation and maintenance responsibilities for the projects, or upon
completion of all regional stormwater projects, payment of all debt incurred by the BBRSA,
agreement as to payment of any BBRSA obligations to Members and disbursement of any
remaining revenues and agreement among the Members as to any continuing obligation for
operation and maintenance of the projects.
June 3, 2014
284
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Boxelder Creek Watershed encompasses over 265 square miles and extends from just
north of the Wyoming border to the Poudre River on the south. Several local governments
have worked together since 2005 to identify ways to mitigate flood hazards within the area
that is tributary to Boxelder Creek from County Road 70 north of Wellington south to where
Boxelder Creek floodwaters join the Cache La Poudre River. The Boxelder Creek 100-Year
floodplain impacts approximately 4,900 acres of land within the regional area. Due to the
numerous split flows and diversions that occur, the potential for overtopping frequently used
roads and the probability of the existing conveyance system to become blocked, there is the
potential for loss of life and/or bodily injury during the 100-Year Flood.
In August 2008, the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and Town of Wellington entered into
an intergovernmental agreement to establish the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater
Authority (BBRSA) and fund the design and construction of regional stormwater improvements.
In 2012, the Town of Timnath entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the BBRSA to
financially participate in the design and construction of regional stormwater improvements.
The originally proposed First Amendment to the BBRSA Intergovernmental agreement was
approved by both the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Wellington in May 2013. Larimer
County, however, expressed concerns regarding the need to identify and fund specific
improvements to County Road 52 and to better define the sunset language provision included in
the amendment. A staff update on the BBRSA and associated projects on Boxelder Creek was
presented at the January 28, 2014 City Council Work Session.
In 2014, all parties executed the County Road 52 Improvements IGA to address Larimer
County’s concerns. Accordingly, the BBRSA Master Plan has been updated and revised to
consist of the following regional stormwater projects:
• Diversion of Coal Creek to Clark Reservoir (Clark);
• East Side Detention Facility (ESDF);
• County Road 52 Improvements (CR 52 Improvements); and
• Larimer and Weld Canal Crossing Structure (LWCCS).
Larimer County has proposed a revision to the First Amendment to the BBRSA
Intergovernmental Agreement that specifies a twenty-year sunset provision on the collection of
stormwater fees and charges pending agreement of the parties regarding the on-going
operations and maintenance of the regional stormwater projects.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
In light of the BBRSA Stormwater Master Plan revisions, an update of the estimated
Benefit/Cost Ratio of the regional stormwater projects was completed to confirm the financial
benefits. The table below uses information on damage losses from the 2006 Boxelder Creek
June 3, 2014
285
Regional Stormwater Master Plan and compares the losses with the current estimated
construction costs for the remaining BBRSA projects (ESDF, LWCCS, and CR52
Improvements).
Review of the table shows an updated Benefit/Cost Ratio of 3.95. In most instances, a B/C ratio
of 1.5 or 2 is considered very good. Such a high B/C ratio is very unusual and demonstrates the
dramatic benefits that construction of the BBRSA projects has with regard to the reduction in
damages from a 100-Year flood event.
Fort Collins Benefits
There are significant financial benefits and reductions in flood damage to properties located with
the City of Fort Collins and its GMA, as presented at both the January 28, 2014 Council Work
Session and March 18, 2014 Regular Council Meeting. Highlights of the benefits include:
Cooper Slough
• The BBRSA regional stormwater projects will eliminate the westerly Boxelder Creek
overflow that extends south along the east side of Interstate Highway 25.
• A savings of $11.3 Million in reduced stormwater infrastructure costs.
• Removal of 130 acres of land from the 100-Year floodplain.
• Reduces flooding damage to existing properties at the Mulberry Road / Interstate Highway 25
interchange.
Boxelder Creek
• The BBRSA regional stormwater projects will eliminate the westerly Boxelder Creek
overflow that extends south along the east side of Interstate Highway 25.
• There is a $6 million savings in stormwater infrastructure required for roads within the
Fort Collins GMA.
• There is a $2.1 million savings in stormwater improvements at Boxelder Creek / Prospect
Road.
• Removal of 650 acres of land from the 100-year floodplain.
20 Year Stormwater Fee and Charge Sunset Provision
The revised language in the First Amendment states that the BBRSA shall terminate collection of
stormwater fees and charges twenty years after the effective date of the Amendment provided
there is agreement among the Members with regard to any continued obligation of the Authority
which extends beyond such termination for operation and maintenance responsibilities for the
Coal Creek Flood Mitigation, ESDF, CR 52 Improvements, and LWCCS projects, or upon the
occurrence of all of the following contingencies (a) through (e), whichever first occurs:
(a) Completion of the East Side Detention Facility/Gray Lakes and Larimer/Weld County
Canal Crossing Structure projects;
(b) Payment in full of the loan from the CWCB and any other obligations of the Authority;
(c) Agreement among the Members with regard to any continued obligation of the Authority
which extends beyond the termination of collection of fees and charges by the Authority
June 3, 2014
286
including, but not limited to, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the Coal
Creek Flood Mitigation, the East Side Detention Facility/Gray Lakes, and Larimer/Weld
County Canal Crossing Structure projects.;
(d) Agreement among the Members as to payment of any Authority obligation to the
Members for matching funds of the Members for the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grant in the approximate amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000); and,
(e) Agreement among the Members as to the disbursement of any revenues of the Authority
which remains after the Authority has finalized all of the administrative and
organizational requirements necessary to terminate collection of fees and charges by the
Authority including, but not limited to, any required budgets, audits, and filings with any
state or federal authority.
The current financial scenarios indicate that the CWCB loans are anticipated to be paid off
within 15 years. This is well within the twenty year time period included in the revised First
Amendment language. It should also be noted that the twenty year time frame is also contingent
on the requirement that Fort Collins, Larimer County and Wellington have reached agreement
with regard to the long-term operations and maintenance of the regional stormwater projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The original Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan (2006) did not include any
environmental studies or EIS analysis. In accordance with the language in the original BBRSA
Intergovernmental Agreement -- the location, size and impacts of any BBRSA or Fort
Collins/Timnath stormwater improvements shall be minimized to the extent reasonably possible
and construction activities and improvements shall be sensitive to the natural features of the
affected property. None of the BBRSA or Fort Collins/Timnath stormwater improvements
are located within a designated Fort Collins Natural Area. Any area impacted by
construction activities shall be restored to pre-construction natural conditions to the extent
reasonably possible, using native vegetation.
Environmental Impacts of Original Edson (East Side) Site
The originally-proposed-location for the Edson (East Side) detention facility was at the
confluence of Boxelder and Indian Creeks. The original concept was to construct a dam just
below the confluence. This location would have impacted two creeks instead of one. In addition,
due to its siting much higher in the Boxelder Watershed, over detention of the 100-year runoff
would have been required in order to achieve the same downstream peak discharge reductions.
Upon detailed analysis, it was determined that the physical characteristics and topography of the
site would not provide the required detention volume storage to accomplish the goal and would
result in the condemnation of existing homes. This allows the more frequent and
environmentally beneficial smaller storm events to pass through ESDF without any attenuation
at all. The original location of Edson would not have allowed this type of design.
Environmental Impacts of Current East Side Detention Facility (ESDF)
In order to meet United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) requirements, ESDF was
June 3, 2014
287
designed to minimize wetland impacts. The wetland area was surveyed by Alpine Ecological
services and found to be 13 acres. Of that 13 acres, the current design impacts less than 0.35
acres and that occurs where the footprint of the dam and outlet structure cross Boxelder Creek.
There is no grading proposed within Boxelder Creek other than where the dam crosses the creek.
All impacted wetlands will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The project will obtain an Individual 404
Permit from the USACE. RC Consultants has completed a Historic and Cultural Survey of the
entire project site for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO report will be
submitted along with the 404 permit application.
A key benefit of the current ESDF design is that the dam will not begin to detain flood flows until
a storm event occurs with a greater magnitude than a 50-year flood. The ESDF facility has been
purposefully designed to not detain flows during the more frequent storm events such as the 2-
year, 5-year, 10-year and 25-year because these storm events provide beneficial flows to
Boxelder Creek. Only in very infrequent flood events will Boxelder Creek see any change in
flows. Even after the construction of the ESDF dam, the 100-year flows in Boxelder Creek will
be very close to the current 100-year flows in Boxelder Creek. The flows being eliminated
correlate to the current westerly flow path that spills out of Boxelder Creek and heads towards I-
25 where there is no channel, creek or habitat. All smaller seasonal storms and flood events up
to the 50-year storm will pass as they have historically. The floodplain reduction is in the two
overflow paths (I-25 and Timnath) which are not actual waterways. Accordingly, the
construction of the ESDF facility will not impact the existing beneficial functions of the
floodplains along Boxelder Creek.
Another important design feature of the ESDF facility is the limited time the flood waters will be
detained. Because of the short and intense nature of the storm events along the Front Range,
both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have adopted a 2-hour rainfall hyetograph
with very high intensities. Our current hydraulic model of the dam shows that the total time for
ESDF to drain following a 100-year flood to be 20 hours. This is important because there are
no depletions to the Poudre River System.
Alpine Ecological Services completed an Endangered Species (ESA) survey of the project area in
August of 2013. Based on information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website
(USFWS 2013a) -- 16 federally-listed species may be affected by projects in Larimer County.
These include 11 that may be present in the county and five that could be affected by water
depletions to the Poudre River System. Of the 16 species, the project area only contains
potential habitat for three: Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s), Colorado butterfly plant
(CBP), and Ute ladies’-tresses (ULT). A thorough survey of the proposed project sites and
research of previous studies within the surrounding areas did not find evidence of habitat for the
Preble’s or for either plant. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service concurred with Andy’s findings
and provided an ESA clearance letter for the project.
Environmental Impacts of Elimination of the Middle Boxelder Creek Improvements
As a result of the relocation of the ESDF downstream to a site that can provide increased
detention storage, the Middle Boxelder Creek improvements were eliminated, reducing
potential adverse impacts on the section of Boxelder Creek from County Roads 48 to 54.
June 3, 2014
288
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Information on the BBRSA and progress on its regional projects is presented monthly at the
BBRSA Board of Directors meeting, which is held at 4:00 PM the fourth Wednesday of each
month at the Leeper Center, 3800 Wilson Avenue, Wellington, Colorado. The Board
Meeting agendas and minutes along with relevant studies, mapping and other information are
available for review at the following BBRSA website hyperlink:
http://www.boxelderauthority.org/. In addition, the BBRSA maintains a mailing list of parties
who have expressed interest in receiving information and regularly distributes Board Meeting
agendas and materials. The BBRSA also publishes and distributes a quarterly newsletter
which provides information and updates on the authority and its programs.
Comprehensive updates on the BBRSA were presented at the recent public meetings listed
below:
January 28, 2014 City Council Work Session
February 26, 2014 BBRSA Board of Directors Work Session
March 18, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting.”
Ken Sampley, Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager, briefly introduced the item.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Boxelder Stormwater Authority is the worst
example of local government he has ever encountered and the project is not necessary.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Resolution 2014-033.
Mayor Pro Tem stated this is an amendment requested by the County.
Councilmember Cunniff questioned why the City is not using the context of this agreement in an
omnibus agreement with the County with respect to some of the discussions held at last week’s
work session.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this is an amendment to an ongoing agreement.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Troxell, Horak, Weitkunat and Campana. Nays:
Overbeck, Poppaw and Cunniff.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
June 3, 2014
289
Ordinance No. 090, 2014,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund to
Design and Construct the Fort Collins / Timnath Boxelder Creek
Flood Mitigation Projects, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate funds in the amount of $3,750,000 to design and
construct the Fort Collins/Timnath Boxelder Creek Improvements, as outlined in the Sixth
Amendment to the Fort Collins – Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), as adopted
by City Council under Ordinance No. 047, 2014 on April 1, 2014.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In February 2009, Fort Collins and Timnath entered into an intergovernmental agreement
(IGA) regarding Growth Management Areas (GMAs) for the two communities, associated
issues authorizing the disposition of certain properties, and stormwater and floodplain issues
associated with Boxelder Creek and the “Boxelder Creek Overflow Project.” There have been
seven (7) amendments to the IGA.
The Sixth Amendment to the IGA was adopted under Ordinance No. 047, 2014 at the April 1,
2014 Regular Council Meeting. The locations of the Fort Collins / Timnath Boxelder Creek
Improvements and Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) Regional Stormwater
Improvements are shown on Attachment 1. The Fort Collins / Timnath Boxelder Creek Improvements
consist of:
• Lake Canal Crossing of Boxelder Creek -- A siphon and associated appurtenances to
transport flows in the Lake Canal beneath Boxelder Creek just west of Interstate
Highway 25.
• Boxelder Creek Outfall and Prospect Road Improvements -- A side spill weir (split
flow channel) and flood conveyance channel on Boxelder Creek upstream of
Prospect Road along with six 12’ x 4’ concrete box culverts beneath Prospect Road
west of Interstate Highway 25, associated utility relocations (i.e. electric, water,
wastewater, gas and telecommunications), roadway restoration, and a flood
conveyance channel south of Prospect Road to the Poudre River and associated
appurtenances.
• Boxelder Creek at Interstate Highway 25 (I-25) -- Drainageway and channel
improvements and grading adjacent to and upstream (east) of I-25 and the opening of
two existing blocked culverts beneath I-25.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The total cost of these projects is currently estimated to be $4,000,000. Fort Collins and
Timnath have agreed to share equally in the costs to complete the projects. As outlined in
June 3, 2014
290
the Sixth Amendment to the IGA, Fort Collins will be able to use the remaining funds
($1,750,000) placed into escrow as part of the original IGA towards its share of the project
funding. Fort Collins will use existing appropriations from the Boxelder Authority project
account in an amount up to $250,000 to fully fund fifty percent (50%) of the total cost of the
Fort Collins/Timnath Projects. The parties agree that the escrowed funds, together with the
additional Fort Collins funds, are intended as a match to payments by Timnath, or the TDA on
behalf of Timnath, in the amount of $2,000,000 to complete the projects. Timnath, or the TDA on
behalf of Timnath, will pay the $2,000,000 to Fort Collins who will manage the design and
construction of the projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
None of the Fort Collins / Timnath Boxelder Creek Improvements are located within a
designated Fort Collins Natural Area. The reach of Boxelder Creek from the Lake Canal
Crossing upstream to just east of I-25 (approximately 300 lineal feet) will be reconstructed to
accommodate the opening of the two existing blocked culverts beneath I-25. The existing Lake
Canal flume which extends over Boxelder Creek and is subject to failure in a flood event will be
removed.
The new flood conveyance channel upstream of Prospect Road will be constructed at an
elevation 2-3 feet above the Boxelder Creek bed and will have minimal impact on the existing
creek section. This new flood conveyance channel will extend southwesterly through new box
culverts under Prospect Road and will outfall into a branch of the Poudre River downstream.
No construction is anticipated within the 100-Year Poudre floodplain. The location, size and
impacts of the stormwater improvements have been minimized to the extent reasonably possible
and all construction activities and improvements shall be sensitive to the natural features of
the affected property. Any area impacted by construction activities shall be restored to pre-
construction natural conditions to the extent reasonably possible, using native vegetation. All
appropriate environmental permitting including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Clearance
and USACE 404 Permit will be obtained.
Council approved the Stormwater Quality Master Plan Update and associated Stream
Rehabilitation Program and project priorities presented by Fort Collins Utilities Stormwater
staff in mid-2012. This included analysis and a report from Colorado State University entitled
“Assessments and Rehabilitation Decision Makin Framework for the Streams of Fort Collins
(CSU Study) to help guide and prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation within the
City. The Boxelder Creek / Cooper Slough Water Quality Master Plan Selected Plan is
Attachment 2 to this memorandum. The reach of Boxelder Creek from the Lake Canal Crossing
downstream to Prospect Road (identified as Reach 3-1 in the Boxelder Creek/Cooper Slough
Master Plan) was identified for future stream rehabilitation and restoration improvements with a
preliminary estimated cost of $780,000. It is priority number 35 within the Stream
Rehabilitation program (see Attachment 3).
Annual funding in the amount of $650,000 for 2013 and 2014 was approved by Council as part
of the 2013-14 BFO process for stream rehabilitation and regional Best Management Practices
(BMPs) projects. These funds have been allocated to the highest priority stream rehabilitation
June 3, 2014
291
projects (Fossil Creek Reach 4-1 and Spring Creek Reach 1-5). Stream rehabilitation funding in
the amount of $650,000 and $700,000 has been requested for 2015 and 2016, respectively, as
part of the 2015-16 BFO process. Boxelder Creek Reach 3-1 would not typically be funded for
10-15 years given the current annual funding allocations. However, Stormwater staff is
coordinating with the developer of the Interstate Land site located at the northwest corner of I-
25 and Prospect Road to potentially design and construct the proposed stream rehabilitation
projects in this reach over the next several years.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Information on the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority and progress on its
regional projects is presented monthly at the BBRSA Board of Directors meeting which is held
at 4:00 PM the fourth Wednesday of each month at the Leeper Center, 3800 Wilson Avenue,
Wellington, Colorado. The Board Meeting agendas and minutes along with relevant studies,
mapping and other information are available for review at the following BBRSA website
hyperlink: http://www.boxelderauthority.org/.
In addition, the BBRSA maintains a mailing list of parties who have expressed interest in
receiving information and regularly distributes Board Meeting agendas and materials. The
BBRSA also publishes and distributes a quarterly newsletter which provides information and
updates on the authority and its programs.
Comprehensive updates on the BBRSA were presented at the recent public meetings listed below:
• January 28, 2014 City Council Work Session
• February 26, 2014 BBRSA Board of Directors Work Session
• March 18, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting
• April 1, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting.”
Ken Sampley, Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager, stated this item appropriates funds
for the flood mitigation projects.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated Timnath is not collecting stormwater fees or other
fees as Timnath’s entire contribution is coming from the Timnath Development Authority which
is using tax increment financing.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if some of these areas are near City Natural Areas. Sampley
replied this project does include a portion of Cooper Slough.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the size of the Boxelder area. Sampley replied it goes to
the Wyoming border.
Councilmember Overbeck asked if an increase in oil and gas activity is a possibility if the
floodplain is reduced. Sampley replied he would need to defer that question.
June 3, 2014
292
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt
Ordinance No. 090, 2014, on First Reading. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana and Troxell.
Nays: Overbeck, Poppaw and Cunniff.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
Decision to Approve the Bella Vira, Final Plan, Extension of
Vested Rights, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
Decision to Approve the Bella Vira, Final Plan, Extension of Vested Rights requested by
Richmond American Homes.
On April 24, 2014 an appeal was filed concerning the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
decision regarding a request for extension of vested rights to the Bella Vira, Final Plan, located
at the southwest corner of South Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street. An amended appeal
was filed on May 14, 2014.
The Amended Appeal asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, and failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Bella Vira, Final Plan, Extension of Vested Rights is the subject of this appeal. The original
Bella Vira, Final Plan was approved in 2008. The Final Plan was approved for 60 single family
detached dwellings, and 25 multi-family dwelling units on 34.7 acres.
On April 10, 2014 the Planning and Zoning Board issued a decision to approve the request by
Richmond American Homes for extension of vested rights for the Bella Vira, Final Plan for a one
year extension to April 29, 2015.
AMENDED APPEAL SUMMARY
The Amended Appeal asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code (LUC) and Charter including
LUC Sections 2.2.11 (D) (3) (4), LUC 3.6.1, LUC 3.6.2, and Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards, Chapters 1, 7, 16, 17, and Appendix H. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing, in that the board considered evidence relative to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
June 3, 2014
293
ASSERTIONS OF APPEAL
1. The Appellant asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
The Appellant states:
“Vested rights for the Bella Vira Final Development Plan did lapse on or prior to January
3rd, 2013.”
The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (page 20)
contains:
BOARDMEMBER HART:
“I think that in terms of process, you know, there may have been some glitches in the process,
but the bottom line to me is that they have followed the process based upon their best
knowledge.”
BOARDMEMBER HEINZ:
“But, I think that what we have before us is a basic matter of extension…”
VICE CHAIR KIRKPATRICK:
“I also think that the request for extension absolutely falls within the requirements in which we
have to make…to grant such a request.”
BOARDMEMBER HOBBS:
“I would like to make a motion, but I would like to get…oh, your information is back up there, it
wasn’t in our…so, I can read it off there. So I would move that the Board approve the Bella Vira
Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights, MIS 140002, for a one year term of vested rights to April
29, 2015, provided that the City Council determines that the extension of the plan granted by the
Planning and Zoning Board on May 16, 2013 is valid and binding upon the City.”
More information can be found in the record on:
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 4 -
10)
• The Staff Report (page 1, 2, and 7)
The Appellant states:
“The Bella Vira …. Final Development Plan did not comply with the Fort Collins Land Use Code
prior to lapse or prior to the extension under appeal in that an added component of the intersection
June 3, 2014
294
at Elizabeth and Overland Trail does not meet safety requirements or existing standards of street
improvements per the LUC or as exists in the area.”
The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 20 and
21) contains:
BOARDMEMBER HART:
“Well, I’ve looked at this. I think it’s really good that Mr. Sutherland, some of the neighbors,
have raised the issues, but based upon what we’ve heard from the applicant and staff, it appears
that the transportation system is functioning adequately and will function adequately until the
time comes when improvements have to be undertaken. But none of those are relevant to this
particular project. They just are relevant to the natural growth…growth associated with traffic
moving back and forth in that area.”
BOARDMEMBER HOBBS:
“…it is our responsibility to look at this, make sure that there aren’t…I think what you said were
section three, sort of, changes that may have happened since the original approval of this. I
don’t believe that we have heard or seen any of those that justify either revisiting this more or
refusing it.”
BOARDMEMBER HEINZ:
“It seems like with the traffic and the streets, that it’s just based on standards, and you know, it’s
not just an arbitrary situation.”
VICE CHAIR KIRKPATRICK:
“I think that the plan complies with all of the relevant and applicable standards in our Land Use
Code, and I also think that the request for extension absolutely falls within the requirements in
which we have to make…to grant such a request. I consider myself a bike and pedestrian
advocate and I think that Fort Collins has really rigorous standards compared to most places.
And I think that we are very scientific and prescriptive in the way in which we handle our
transportation system, and I think that we are doing as we are supposed to.”
More information can be found in the record on:
• The Staff Report (page 6)
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 5-
15, 16)
The Appellant states:
“The Bella Vira…Final Development Plan did not comply with the Fort Collins Land Use Code prior
to lapse in that pedestrian access and facilities do not meet applicable standards.”
June 3, 2014
295
See response above.
More information can be found in the record on:
• The Staff Report (page 6)
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 5-
15, 16)
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 20
and 21)
2. The Appellant asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair
hearing in that: The board…considered evidence relative to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
The Appellant states:
“Applicant's Attorney misstated the facts pertaining to the limited term of vested rights.”
See response above on vested rights assertion.
More information can be found in the record on:
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 7, 8,
and 20)
The Appellant states:
“Applicant's Attorney ignored the inability of the P & Z Board to extend vested rights in 2013 due
to deficiency of conditions necessary for extension - i.e. no due diligence and no hardship unique to
property.”
See response above on vested rights assertion.
More information can be found in the record on:
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 7,
8, and 20)
The Appellant states:
“City Staff made false representations regarding the conformance of public
infrastructure with applicable standards.”
See response above on response to assertion that the Final Plan did not comply with the Land
Use Code.
June 3, 2014
296
More information can be found in the record on:
• The Staff Report (page 6)
• The verbatim transcript from the Hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board (pages 5-15,
16, 20, and 21).”
City Attorney Roy briefly reviewed the appeals process.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked if truthful and accurate statements can be expected
from staff and if a letter can be written by any party who finds tonight’s decision unsatisfactory.
City Manager Atteberry replied factual information will be presented; however, Mr. Sutherland
may not agree.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, discussed the appeal allegations and staff responses thereto.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Sutherland discussed his assertion that the intersection of Overland Trail and Elizabeth is
unsafe and deficiencies exist in the development review process for this project. He presented
slides to illustrate his argument regarding the intersection.
Charles Cuypers, Attorney for Bella Vira Townhomes, objected to this evidence as being new.
Mr. Sutherland replied City staff were disingenuous at the previous hearing and suggested this
information provides evidence as to why a right-hand turn lane is necessary at the intersection.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she does not see the relevance of the presentation.
City Attorney Roy stated, if this evidence is offered in support of an allegation that information
to which this pertains that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board was substantially
false or grossly misleading, then it is admissible as new evidence for that purpose.
Mayor Weitkunat agreed to allow the presentation.
Mr. Sutherland discussed intersections with right-hand turn lanes throughout the city and argued
one is necessary at the Overland Trail and Elizabeth intersection. Additionally, he discussed
other safety issues and requests for the intersection.
OPPONENT PRESENTATION
Jake Schroeder, Richmond American Homes, Inc., stated Council needs to determine whether or
not the Planning and Zoning Board exceeded its authority in extending the vested rights for the
Bella Vira project and encouraged Council to deny the appeal. He provided a history of
Richmond American Homes’ ownership of the property and expenditures related to the project.
He discussed the need for the vested rights extension and detailed his arguments in opposition to
the appeal allegations. Additionally, he stated the Overland Trail and Elizabeth intersection and
the project comply with all Land Use Code standards.
June 3, 2014
297
Mr. Cuypers discussed the signing date of the plat for the final use plan and stated that was the
date the vested rights began. Additionally, he stated Mr. Sutherland disagrees with staff
regarding the plan and intersection and requested a denial of the appeal.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Mr. Sutherland stated he is taking these actions in defense of the community and to further
concepts embodied in the City’s planning documents. He argued the intersection as designed
would not comport with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. He stated Council will
need to condition whatever motion made, should it desire to have a safe and efficient intersection
constructed.
OPPONENT REBUTTAL
Mr. Schroeder argued empirical evidence does not warrant or require the improvements
suggested by Mr. Sutherland and stated the project complies with all Code requirements.
Mayor Weitkunat requested information regarding the vested rights issue. Gloss replied the
Planning and Zoning Board had much discussion regarding when vesting occurred and the
reliance of the applicant on certain dates. He stated the initial date was when the plat was signed.
A subsequent two week extension was granted incorrectly; however, good faith efforts were
made to determine when expiration was approaching and 30 days advance notice was provided
for all extension applications. He stated all extensions granted were in compliance with the Land
Use Code.
Mayor Weitkunat requested information regarding the development’s compliance with the Land
Use Code as it pertains to safe and signalized intersections and right turn lanes. Karen Cumbo,
Planning, Development and Transportation Services Director, replied the traffic study does not
show enough volume to warrant a right-turn lane and stated this road is not yet built to its
ultimate width; therefore, the existing turn lanes will ultimately be through lanes. The
intersection complies with the Code.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if street design, intersections, and the necessity for right-turn lanes and
intersections change as time progresses. Cumbo replied in the affirmative and noted the
intersection will continue to be monitored.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, that the Planning
and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in its consideration of the Bella Vira
Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell,
Overbeck and Poppaw. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the Bella Vira Final Plan Extension of
June 3, 2014
298
Vested Rights because the Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use
Code in approving the extension. Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell, Overbeck,
Poppaw and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to extend the
meeting past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw, Cunniff and
Horak. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Three Appeals of the Summit on College Project Development Plan
Major Amendment Pertaining to a Parking Structure, Resolution Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2014-050 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of
the March 19, 2014, Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Regarding the Major
Amendment to the Summit on College Project Development Plan.
or
B. Motion to Continue to Adjourned Meeting on June 24, 2014, to Consider Motion to
Amend Decision.
On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal concerning the Hearing
Officer’s March 19, 2014 Decision to Approve the Summit on College Parking Structure, Major
Amendment.
On May 20, 2014, City Council voted 6-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer conducted a
fair hearing in approving the Major Amendment; and voted 5-1 (Nays: Weitkunat; Troxell
absent) that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code, specifically Section 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J), and remanded the decision to the
Hearing Officer.
On May 24, 2014, the developer of the proposed parking structure, through his attorney,
submitted a written request to the City that the City Council consider amending its decision on
this appeal so as to modify the hearing officer’s decision by approving the Major Amendment but
adding two conditions.
June 3, 2014
299
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing Officer considered the application for the Summit
on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment. The Hearing Officer issued a decision to
approve the Major Amendment with conditions. The application consisted of a request to
construct a parking structure with 440 parking spaces. The proposed structure will be built over
an existing surface parking lot, resulting in a net gain of 352 spaces. The parking structure
consists of 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 3 ½ stories.
On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal; the grounds for appeal are as
follows:
Appellant Lester M. Kaplan and Appellant Jeffrey Leef:
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use
Code and Charter.
Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
o The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter;
o The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to
its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
Appellant Councilmember Cunniff:
Other.
At the May 20, 2014 hearing on the matter, Council considered said appeal, reviewed the record
of appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties-of-interest and, after
discussion, remanded the Decision to the Hearing Officer.
Council voted 6-0 on the motion that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing in approving
the Major Amendment; and voted 5-1 (Nays: Weitkunat; Troxell absent) that the Hearing Officer
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Section 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J), and remanded the decision to the Hearing Officer. Council
directed the Hearing Officer to further consider the impact of the Major Amendment on Spring
Creek and for consideration of the reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the
reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum
parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone.
On May 24, 2014, the developer of the proposed parking structure, through his attorney,
submitted a written request to the City that the City Council consider amending its decision on
this appeal so as to modify the hearing officer’s decision by approving the Major Amendment but
requiring that:
June 3, 2014
300
1. the height of the structure be reduced by one level to a height dimension of
approximately 27’ on the north, east, south and most of the west elevation; and
2. additional green screening be included on the south façade of the structure to further
soften the view from Spring Creek.
Therefore, two alternative actions are available to the Council. The first would be to finalize the
appeal by adopting the proposed resolution. The second would be to continue the matter to June
24, 2014, for possible consideration of a motion to amend the action taken by the Council at the
conclusion of the hearing on May 20, 2014. If the Council chooses the latter course of action,
all parties-in-interest to the appeal will be notified of the possibility that the outcome of the
appeal may be changed and that they will be given an opportunity on June 24 to speak to the
request that the applicant/developer has made.”
Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion of this item as he did not participate in the
original hearing, although he reserved the right to participate in subsequent hearings after
reviewing Council’s actions at the hearings.
City Attorney Roy reviewed Council’s decision to remand the issue to the Hearing Officer for
further consideration. He received a letter on May 23
rd
from Carolynne White, attorney for the
developer, requesting that Council amend or rescind the decision it made at the conclusion of the
appeal. Council has the option to adopt a Resolution making findings with regard to the decision
made at the appeal hearing, as well as the option to adjourn this meeting, should Council wish to
consider Ms. White’s request to rescind or amend its decision. Additionally, Council has also
received a letter from Rick Zier on behalf of three appellants stating his position with regard to
Ms. White’s request. Council can continue this meeting to a later date in order to consider the
request following the notification of all parties-in-interest.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed disappointment in City Attorney Roy’s
interpretation of the Code regarding the Resolution making findings.
Jeff Jones, Capstone Development Partners Executive Vice President, stated Capstone can
reduce the height of the garage by one level, reduce the number of parking spaces by 27%, or 91
spaces. He requested Council allow the process to go forward with the condition of a reduction
in size rather than remand the decision back to the Hearing Officer.
Kelly Ohlson, Fort Collins resident, stated Council should focus on better rather than bigger
development. He requested Council adopt the finding of facts remanding the issue back to the
Hearing Officer.
Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel for the applicant, stated a remand to the Hearing Officer
would require the Hearing Officer to reconsider two particular Code criteria relating to
compatibility with Spring Creek, and a reduction in the size and number of spaces in the garage.
She stated remanding the decision would not address the issues raised by the appellant as it was
limited to those particular topics. She requested Council proceed with a condition on the size
and number of spaces in the garage.
June 3, 2014
301
Steve Pfister, Fort Collins resident, stated it is appropriate for Council to consider this due to the
negative impact of Summit residents parking in residential areas.
Rick Zier, attorney for three appellants, stated he was not informed about this request by the
applicant. He argued most of Mr. Jones’ comments were substantive rather than procedural and
stated Ms. White’s letter contained new evidence. He requested Council adopt the findings
Resolution.
Councilmember Campana asked if this type of instance has ever previously occurred. City
Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt
Resolution 2014-050.
Councilmember Campana expressed appreciation for the effort being put forth by all parties, but
stated he would support the motion in order to ensure adherence to the process.
Mayor Weitkunat stated it would be difficult to not address the findings of fact.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Overbeck, Poppaw, Cunniff, Horak and
Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2014-045
Approving an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District
Establishing the Poudre Fire Authority, Postponed to July 15, 2014
City Manager Atteberry suggested postponement of Item No. 17, Resolution 2014-045
Approving an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Fort
Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District Establishing the Poudre Fire Authority to
July 15, 2014.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone Item
No. 17 to the July 15, 2014 regular meeting. Yeas: Poppaw, Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat,
Campana, Troxell and Overbeck. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Troxell expressed support for CSU’s EcoCar project and reported he will be
attending the competition in Washington D.C. on Council’s behalf.
June 3, 2014
302
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he was contacted by Steve Ackerman regarding a provision in the
retail marijuana Ordinance stating all retail marijuana must be tested for THC and contaminants.
Mr. Ackerman reported state testing is not yet available for contaminants. Mayor Pro Tem
Horak requested Council consider taking action to request a suspension of that requirement until
state testing is available.
Councilmember Cunniff received Council support to consider instituting an overall wetland
mitigation policy that would allow for higher amounts of wetland mitigation than one for one.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed the value component in regard to wetland mitigation.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to cancel the June
17, 2014 regular meeting due to the Colorado Municipal League meeting. Yeas: Troxell,
Overbeck, Poppaw, Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat and Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adjourn to June
10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. to consider going into Executive Session to discuss the mid-year
performance reviews for Council’s three direct employees. Yeas: Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw,
Cunniff, Horak, Weitkunat and Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
303
June 10, 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, June 10,
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, Troxell and Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Overbeck, Poppaw
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to go into
executive session for the purpose of conducting the mid-year performance reviews of the City
Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City
Code. Yeas: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Troxell and Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
$25,000 $12,500 $12,500 50%
Volunteers of America: Home
Delivered Meal Program
$33,600 $33,600 $0 100%
Public Service Total $1,305,649 $858,557 $447,112 66%
A summary of the Commission’s funding recommendations by category is presented in the
following table:
Food Bank for Larimer County:
Kids Café
$27,182 $27,182 $0 100%
GLBT Community Center: Rainbow
Alley Youth Services
$7,500 $3,000 $4,500 40%
Health District of Larimer County:
Dental Connections
$54,900 $23,000 $31,900 42%
Homelessness Prevention Initiative:
Emergency Rental Assistance
$60,000 $45,000 $15,000 75%
Funded
Alliance for Suicide Prevention:
Education, Awareness & Support
Programs
$10,148 $4,250 $5,898 42%