HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/20/2012 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ODATE: November 20, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 30, 2012 Adjourned Meeting and the November 6, 2012
Regular Meeting.
October 30, 2012
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, October
30, 2012, 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: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and
Weitkunat.
(**Secretary’s note: Councilmember Troxell arrived at 6:04 p.m.)
Councilmembers Absent: Horak
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Mayor Weitkunat stated Item No. 3, Consideration of the appeal of the August 9, 2012 Zoning
Board of Appeals Decision to Approve a Variance to Allow the Existing Off-Premise Sign
(Billboard) Located in the BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road to be
Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad Right of Way at 190 West
Prospect Road, has been postponed to the November 6, 2012 Council meeting.
Consideration of an Appeal of the Hearing Officer’s August 16, 2012 Decision
to Approve Aspen Heights Project Development
Plan, #PDP110018, Hearing Officer Decision Upheld with Conditions
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2011, Breckenridge Land Acquisition, LLP, submitted a Project Development Plan
(PDP) for a combination of single family detached, two-family and multi-family dwellings in the C-
C-N, Community Commercial North College zone district. As proposed, the project consists of 220
dwellings on 31 acres located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old
Town North subdivision.
On August 7, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing in consideration of Aspen
Heights PDP. On August 16, 2012, after consideration of testimony from the applicant, the public
and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the PDP. with one condition
ensuring proper submittal of a landscape plan for the clubhouse.
On August 30, 2012, Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer’s
decision.
116
October 30, 2012
The appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is a request for 220 dwellings on 31 acres located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood
Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. The dwellings, and the number of bedrooms, would
be divided in the following manner:
82 Single Family Detached (3 bedrooms per unit)
62 Two Family (duplexes) (2-3 bedrooms per unit);
76 Multi-Family (row-houses, 3 – 6 units per building) (2-3 bedrooms per unit).
There would be a total of 600 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. (The applicant
has indicated that there is a potential for all 82 single family detached dwellings to be converted to
Extra Occupancy Rental Houses featuring a mix of 4-5 bedrooms per unit at some point in the
future. Such conversion would be subject to the procedures and standards of Section 3.8.16 and
could possibly increase the total bedroom count to 720. Such conversion is not the subject of this
PDP.)
All dwellings would be two-story. There would be 786 off-street parking spaces. The project
includes a clubhouse, pool, outdoor sport court and leasing office.
Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive are two public streets that would be extended to serve the site.
Blue Spruce Drive would not be extended south to Blondell Street. Redwood Street would be
extended south to connect with the existing Redwood Street so there would be a complete roadway
between existing East Vine Drive and Conifer Street. A segment of the new, re-aligned Vine Drive
would be constructed along the project’s southern property line but will not extend to North College
Avenue.
ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
At the public hearing, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected
property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing
Officer ten working days to render a written decision. On August 16, 2012, the Hearing Officer
provided a written decision approving the PDP. with the one condition as recommended by staff that
a landscape plan be provided for the clubhouse.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On August 30, 2012, Tom Lawton filed an appeal alleging that the Hearing Officer failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and that the Hearing Officer
failed to conduct a fair hearing.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code?
117
October 30, 2012
2. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer exceeded
his authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter?
3. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer
substantially ignored his previously established rules of procedure?
4. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer considered
evidence relevant to his findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing and/or Failure Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant
Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section 2.2.6(B)(D).
Land Use Code Section 2.2.6(B) reads as follows:
“(B) Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted
with a sign, giving notice to the general public of the proposed development. For
parcels of land exceeding ten (10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The
size of the sign(s) required to be posted shall be as established in the Supplemental
Notice Requirements of Section 2.2.6(D). Such signs shall be provided by the
Director and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location
or locations reasonably calculated by the Director to afford the best notice to the
public, which posting shall occur within fourteen (14) days following submittal of a
development application to the Director.”
The appellant alleges that the property was not posted with a sign in a timely manner and that the
location of the sign that was posted was not in a sufficiently prominent location. The appellant
asserts that the intention of the Development Review Guide, as found on the City of Fort Collins
Current Planning website, was not followed.
On page three, lines 4 – 9 of the verbatim transcript, the following was read into the record by the
Hearing Officer:
Mr. Lopez: “The common development review procedures are codified in Section
2.2. The submittal of the PDP is step three; the public hearing is step seven. As per
City Council Resolution 2012-064, the PDP was remanded back to the public
hearing, step seven, not back to the submittal, step three. The project was submitted
on December 14, 2011. City records indicate that two signs were posted by
December 27, 2011.”
Land Use Code Section 2.2.6(D) reads as follows:
118
October 30, 2012
D) Supplemental Notice Requirements.
Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size
All developments except
as described below.
800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing
more than fifty (50) and
less than one hundred
(100) single-family or
two-family lots or
dwelling units.
800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing
more than twenty-five
(25) and less than one
hundred (100) multi-
family dwelling units.
800 feet 12 square feet
Nonresidential
developments containing
more than twenty-five
thousand (25,000) and
less than fifty thousand
(50,000) square feet of
floor area.
800 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing
one hundred (100) or
more single-family or
two-family lots or
dwelling units.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Developments proposing
one hundred (100) or
more multi-family
dwelling units.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Nonresidential
developments containing
fifty thousand (50,000) or
more square feet of floor
area.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
Nonresidential 1,000 feet; plus, 12 square feet
119
October 30, 2012
Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size
developments which
propose land uses or
activities which, in the
judgment of the Director,
create community or
regional impacts.
with respect to
neighborhood
meetings,
publication of a
notice not less than
seven (7) days prior
to the meeting in a
newspaper of
general circulation
in the city.
Zonings and rezonings of
forty (40) acres or less.
800 feet 12 square feet
Zonings and rezonings of
more than forty (40)
acres.
1,000 feet 12 square feet
The appellant does not provide any specific allegation with regard to Section 2.2.6(D).
As to mailed notice, the verbatim transcript states on page three, lines 10 – 13:
Mr. Lopez: “Also in compliance with Section 2.2.6(A), mailed notices advertising the
public hearing of August 7, 2012 were mailed to affected property owners within the
specific notification area fourteen days prior to the public hearing date. The
notification letter was mailed out on July 25, 2012, thus complying with the
standard.”
B. The Decision Maker failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering grossly misleading
evidence in the hearing due to disingenuous presentation of the proposal.
The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation.
The appellant alleges that the applicant’s presentation indicated that the PDP would contain 600
bedrooms. The developer, in fact, will construct 712 bedrooms. The developer has indicated that,
at some point after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a request for a variance or a waiver will
be made to convert the single family homes to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. Therefore, the
applicant’s presentation to the Hearing Officer was disingenuous, suggesting a pattern of
occupancy which is not that which is intended.
The Hearing Officer stated in his decision on page 18:
“16. Section 3.8.28 – Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations. After issuance
of Certificates of Occupancy, the single family detached dwellings will seek
conversion to Extra Occupancy Rental Houses to allow four to five tenants per unit.
This request is not before the Hearing Officer at this time.”
120
October 30, 2012
The verbatim transcript states on page 45, lines 15 – 19:
Mr. Shepard: “I think the last one before Ward or Mark come up here is the, to
again reference that the three-unrelated and how we get more than three into a
dwelling unit. That’s originally part of the Code that was adopted even before the
Land Use Code when Fort Ram Village on Plum Street desired that. It’s been
expanded now to allow extra occupancy rental house, which is in 3.8.16. It’s a basic
development review, it is not a modification, it’s not a variance as was stated.”
C. The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code in that the Hearing Officer or the City of Fort Collins conducted an
Administrative Hearing when the PDP should have been considered by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation.
The appellant asserts that the Development Review Guide, as found on the Current Planning
website, indicates that while the zoning of the proposed development site is not residential, the
surroundings of the site on two sides are. As such, this application matches almost exactly the
City’s example development requiring a Type 2 review.
The Hearing Officer stated in his decision on pages 5 and 6:
“1. Section 4.19(B)(2)(a) – Permitted Use. This standard lists the permitted uses
in the CCN District, subject to administrative review. Residential uses including
single family, two-family, single family attached, multi-family dwellings, group
homes, extra occupancy rental house and mixed use dwellings are permitted per
subsection (a).”
The verbatim transcript states on page 45, lines 1 – 5:
Mr. Shepard: “There was a comment about some vagueness as to a Type I or Type
II review. It’s not vague, it’s a hard and fast rule, it’s very strict. The Land Use
Code, in Article IV, very explicitly says either you are a P and Z review, or you are
an Administrative Hearing Officer review. There’s no crossing over. The only way
that you can cross over requires a text amendment which has to go to the Planning
and Zoning Board and then two readings by Council.”
D. The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that he exceeded his authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or ignored its previously established rules
of procedure in failing to consider City Plan in his decision.
The appellant does not provide a Land Use Code citation regarding this allegation.
The appellant asserts that two policies from City Plan were not properly considered by the Hearing
Officer:
• Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population
121
October 30, 2012
“Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and
in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public
transportation.”
• Policy LIV 37.3 – Supporting Uses and Housing
“Include student-oriented housing, retail services, and entertainment designed to
function as part of the Campus District. Form strong pedestrian and bicycle
linkages throughout the district and provide connections to city systems beyond the
campus.”
The Hearing Officer stated on page 18 of his decision that the PDP complied with Section 3.6.5(B)
– Location of Existing Transit Routes due to the fact that the PDP is located along Transit Routes
8/81which serves Conifer Street in both directions.
The Hearing Officer included in his decision on pages 3 and 4, six excerpts from the North College
Corridor Plan. This is a geographically specific sub-area plan that formed the basis of the C-C-N
zone district and includes the subject property. An adopted sub-area plan is considered a
component of City Plan.
The Hearing Officer concluded on page 19 that the decision that the PDP complied with the 2007
North College Subarea Plan.
E. The Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair remanded hearing by substantially ignoring
previously established rules of procedure by reason of the Hearing Officer already having
decided the case in the original hearing.
Lands Use Code Section 2.2.7(A) reads as follows:
“2.2.7 Step 7: Public Hearing
(A) Decision maker.
(1) Administrative Review (Type 1 review). An administrative review process is
hereby established wherein certain development applications shall be processed,
reviewed, considered and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
Director pursuant to the general procedural requirements contained in Division 2.1,
and the common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2. For
those development applications that are subject to administrative review, the
Director shall be the designated decision maker.
(2) Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review). A Planning and Zoning
Board review process is hereby established wherein certain development
applications shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to the general
procedural requirements contained in Division 2.1, and the common development
review procedures contained in Division 2.2. For those development applications
122
October 30, 2012
that are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review, the Planning and Zoning
Board shall be the designated decision maker.”
The appellant asserts that having already ruled in the affirmative in the original hearing, the
Hearing Officer is, therefore, biased and unqualified to consider the PDP in the remanded hearing.
Hearing the same case a second time, regardless of differing testimony, it would be extremely hard
to issue a decision contrary to the original.
Further, Section 2.2.7(A) gives no indication that “the Director”, as the “designated decision
maker,” can delegate the role. Finally, Section 2.2.7(D)(1) requires that “the Director” (not “the
designated decision maker) close the public hearing.
The Hearing Officer read into the public record a memorandum prepared by staff. The relevant
subsection of this memorandum is found in the verbatim transcript which states on page 2, lines 24 -
34:
Mr. Lopez: “One of these allegations challenged the legitimacy of the City of Fort
Collins using a Hearing Officer. In response, please note the following from Section
1.4.9(E) (emphasis added): “(E) Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision
appears requiring the Director or some other City officer or employee to do some
act or perform some duty, such provision shall be construed as authorizing the
Director or other officer or employee to designate, delegate and authorize
professional-level subordinates to perform the required act or duty unless the terms
of the provision specify otherwise. With respect to the review of development
applications eligible for Type 1 review, in addition to or in substitution for
delegation to subordinates as above authorized, the Director may engage the
services of an attorney with experience in land use matters.”
City Attorney Roy outlined the appeal process. He noted no new evidence is admissible except in
response to an allegation that a fair hearing was not held because the hearing officer relied upon
evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading, or in response to Council questions. He
discussed the options Council has upon hearing the appeal.
Mayor Weitkunat asked for general procedural objections.
Tom Lawton, appellant, stated two documents were not included in the Council packet and two
documents in the packet did not have a source cited. He stated the two missing documents were a
Student Housing Action Plan preparation document and a Power Point presentation.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, stated the first document is referred to as the Student Housing Action
Plan Process Summary. The document was referenced by Mr. Lawton during his testimony before
the hearing officer, as per the verbatim transcript. The actual Process Summary itself was not
submitted until after the close of citizen input. It was submitted electronically near the end of the
hearing. Shepard stated he does have ten hard copies of the document available should Council wish
to review it. Shepard clarified that Exhibit 2 was submitted by Mr. Mickey Willis, though the
document is an email from Mr. Lawton.
123
October 30, 2012
Shepard stated the Power Point presentation referenced by Mr. Lawton was presented from an iPad.
An electronic version, to be converted to hard copy, was not received until after the close of citizen
input. There are no objections to giving Mr. Lawton additional time to present his documents.
Shepard stated Exhibit 7 was submitted by the applicant to the Hearing Officer at the public hearing
during the time set aside for applicant rebuttal.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would like to see the visuals of Mr. Lawton’s presentation.
City Attorney Roy suggested the applicant be allowed to speak to the issues.
Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant did not have
any objections to Mr. Lawton showing what was presented at the public hearing.
Shepard stated the public hearing was a remanded hearing held on August 7, 2012. He presented
project statistics and summarized the appeal allegations.
Mayor Weitkunat asked that Councilmembers reveal any observations made or discussions held on
a site visit.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he did attend the site visit to view the property.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Mr. Lawton discussed the fact that the Student Housing Action Plan was in process, but not
completed, at the time the Aspen Heights project was submitted. He discussed the points of his
appeal. His first allegation related to the notification sign posting on the property proposed for
development. Mr. Lawton also alleged the Hearing Officer considered grossly misleading evidence
relating to the project’s proposed number of bedrooms. Mr. Lawton alleged an unfair hearing and
claimed the project should have gone before the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed site is
not near an educational campus and is not served by public transportation. He opposed the fact that
the same Hearing Officer presided over the remanded hearing.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Deanne Frederickson, Aspen Heights Planner, discussed the proposed Aspen Heights development.
She discussed the benefits of the project to the area and students and noted the project meets all
Land Use Code standards without any modifications or variances.
Ms. Liley discussed the appeal allegations. She noted the extra-occupancy process, per the Land
Use Code, must occur after the PDP process and discussed the fact that the proposed project is a
permitted use. Ms. Liley discussed the public transportation availability for the site and noted
student housing is encouraged to be placed throughout the city. Additionally, Ms. Liley noted
remands always go back to the original Hearing Officer. She requested the Hearing Officer’s
decision be upheld.
124
October 30, 2012
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, spoke in favor of the project. He noted affordable housing
options are often taken by students and these types of projects will aid in freeing up affordable
housing for families and others who need it.
Monica Sweere, Old Town North, LLC Manager, supported the project.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the adequacy of the Transfort system to serve
such a large development and questioned the fact that the project did not go before the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Mr. Lawton opposed certain aspects of the Land Use Code regulations.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Liley stated the appeal did not address issues with the project itself, but rather the process. She
stated the applicant has consistently followed the currently outlined process. She requested that the
decision of the hearing officer be upheld.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilmember Manvel asked about the impact of the potential of increasing the number of
bedrooms on the traffic analysis . Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer, replied the traffic analysis was
done based upon the potential for additional bedrooms, with a ten percent downgrade for alternative
modes, though there is likely to be a higher usage of alternative modes.
Councilmember Manvel asked, whether or not the community will provide shuttle bus service as
no additional Transfort bus service is planned. Stanford replied those issues are not part of the
overall traffic analysis. Shepard replied the developer has publically indicated that shuttle service
will be considered, should demand exist. There is no condition, at this point, that would mandate
shuttle service.
Ms. Liley stated the developer is willing to provide shuttle service if the demand exists.
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the possible need for additional bus service on the route that
would serve this development. Shepard replied Transfort Planning has not indicated the buses on
that route are at capacity.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what the City is requiring with regard to on-site ditches, one of which
is to be eliminated and one of which is to be enhanced. Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner, replied
the main north-south corridor will be preserved through the project. A second drainage that runs
into the main area will be removed. The area that will be preserved will be widened to from twenty
feet to fifty feet and will be planted with native grasses, shrubs, and trees. Mitigation for the area
that is going to be removed will occur in the regional pond.
125
October 30, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this irrigation ditch will have a buffer. Ex replied it is not an
irrigation ditch, but is a wildlife corridor and will be preserved at a width of fifty feet and will not
have a fifty-foot buffer on each side.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about on-site trees. Ex replied most of the trees, particularly in the
wildlife corridor, are Russian Olive and will be replaced.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the timeline for prairie dog habitat restoration. Ex replied the
development agreement for the project will stipulate how the funds are transferred in the restoration
process. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager, replied the mitigation funds will be applied
the following restoration season. It takes up to ten years to fully restore a piece of property to
prairie.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested changes may need to be made at some point with the mitigation
dollar amount when the time it takes for restoration is considered. He disagreed with one-to-one
mitigation for wetlands as well. Ex noted the quality of the wetland is being considered rather than
just the acreage.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the possibility of relocating the prairie dogs to Soapstone
Natural Area. Sears replied part of the management plan for Soapstone is to not relocate prairie
dogs from off-site. Existing on-site prairie dogs will be allowed to exist and grow a colony
naturally.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how many prairie dogs are estimated to be on-site. Ex replied she
was unsure.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested Council address the fair hearing issue of the appeal.
Councilmember Manvel stated the signage complies with existing regulations and traffic impacts
were calculated based upon the possibility of adding more bedrooms
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Council find
that the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in consideration of the Aspen Heights
Project Development Plan #110018. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to uphold the
decision of the Hearing Officer approving the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan #110018,
because the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Manvel noted discrepancies between City Plan and the Land Use Code may need
to be addressed; however, this project has abided by the regulations in the Land Use Code. While
the project may not be optimal from the perspective of nearby residents, City Plan calls for infill
projects. He noted the stormwater and street improvements in the area will benefit the community.
126
October 30, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated there is room for improvement in the City’s policies and processes,
though the developer should not be punished because of that. He suggested restoration and wetland
mitigation policies should be examined as well as possibly improving the wildlife corridor area to
a greater extent.
Ms. Liley stated the applicant is willing to work with staff on the issue of improving the wildlife
corridor area.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the stormwater area look a bit more natural with contours and
interest. City Manager Atteberry replied staff would address the issue.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the applicant would be willing to work with Transfort to discover
a trigger point for the need for shuttle service and to address capacity issues. Ms. Liley replied she
would prefer that issue be a condition of approval.
City Attorney Roy clarified that the motion should include the condition that the developer work
with staff on improving and/or enlarging the wildlife corridor area and should include the condition
that shuttle service be provided unless it is found to be unnecessary. Councilmembers Troxell and
Manvel accepted the conditions to be part of the motion.
Mayor Weitkunat noted public input on the Land Use Code process is appreciated and should be
brought forth for the next set of Land Use Code changes in May.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy, Postponed to November 6, 2012
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Utilities staff has been working on updating the City’s Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. The current Policy was adopted by City Council in September 2003 (Resolution
2003-104). Since the Policy’s adoption, the Utility has seen a significant reduction in water use
while continuing to plan for future water needs. The updated Policy will provide further direction
regarding the planning, management and maintenance of the City’s water supply system needed to
assure a safe, reliable drinking water supply and provide for an appropriate level of water
conservation. It will also provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources
to meet other beneficial purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community.
127
October 30, 2012
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
History
Since the Fort Collins Water Utility’s origin in the 1880s, the City has been focused on providing
a high quality and reliable water supply to its customers. Policies that have supported the Utility
in providing this water supply, as well as encouraging water conservation, have included the 1988
Water Supply Policy, the 1992 Water Demand Management Policy and the current 2003 Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy. This Policy update should continue the objectives of
providing a sustainable and integrated approach to ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable supply
of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community, while managing the level of demand
and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource.
Much of the work on the Policy update was performed in 2011 and included educating and
gathering input from a Community Working Group (CWG) that had diverse water related
backgrounds and perspectives. After six meetings with the CWG, a draft Policy update was
developed that incorporated many of their issues and concerns. The proposed Policy update was
presented to Water Board at its November 17, 2011 meeting. After much discussion, the Board
voted unanimously to recommend to City Council support for the draft policy. The Policy update
was presented to City Council during a work session on January 10, 2012. Council did not feel the
Policy update was ready for adoption and requested additional information.
Much of the material developed for the Policy update, CWG and Water Board was provided to the
City Council for the January 10, 2012 work session. Materials provided for that meeting are
available for review on the City’s website at www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php.
One of the key updated Policy sections that was discussed during the January 10, 2012 work session
(as well as by the CWG and Water Board) was the water supply planning criteria. The three main
planning criteria used to develop the City’s water supply system are the drought criterion, storage
reserve factor and planning demand level. These criteria determine the amount of water supplies
and/or facilities the City needs (e.g., the amount of storage required) and should be somewhat
conservative to account for uncertainties in water supply planning. The following describes each
of these criteria separately.
Drought Criterion
The drought criterion defines the level of reliability for the City’s water supply system. In general,
water supply systems yield less in more severe droughts. For example, a water supply system that
can provide 30,000 acre-feet of water through a 1-in-50 year drought might only be able to provide
20,000 acre-feet during a 1-in-100 year drought. The City has used a 1-in-50 year drought criterion
since the 1988 Water Supply Policy. This criterion has provided a reliable supply system to date,
but not without issues during the early 2000s drought.
Storage Reserve Factor
A storage reserve factor is a criterion to have a certain percent of annual demand in storage
through the design drought criterion (1-in-50 year drought). This storage reserve provides a short-
term supply to address emergency situations, such as pipeline shutdowns (which can and have
128
October 30, 2012
occurred during drought conditions). Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin for meeting the
storage reserve would help diversify the City’s water supply system, which is highly reliant on CBT
storage. The storage reserve factor can be equated to the number of months of demand that can be
met as shown in the following table:
Storage
Reserve
Factor
# of Winter
Month
Demands
# of
Summer
(July)
Month
Demands
0% 0.0 0.0
5% 0.9 0.4
10% 1.8 0.7
15% 2.8 1.1
20% 3.7 1.5
25% 4.6 1.8
Planning Demand Level
The planning demand level is the amount of demand the water supply system should be developed
to meet. Since acquiring water supplies takes many years, projecting future demands is required
to determine which supplies and/or facilities need to be acquired. The planning demand level is
measured in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and is used along with projected population and
large contractual use needs to determine future demand levels (and thus water supplies and/or
facilities to acquire). The planning demand level can be higher than current use or water
conservation goals to account for uncertainties in water supply planning that might reduce the yield
of the City’s water supplies. The City’s current average water use is 150 GPCD and the 2009 Water
Conservation Plan has a goal to reduce use to 140 GPCD by the year 2020.
The water supply planning criteria values initially presented in the updated Policy were those being
used by the Corps in the permitting process for the Utilities proposed enlargement of Halligan
Reservoir, which has been ongoing for several years. The criteria originally presented in the
updated Policy were the values currently being used in the Halligan permitting process of the 1-in-
50 year drought criterion, a planning demand level of 162 GPCD (2002-2007 average use), and a
15% storage reserve factor. Although there were some divergent views from CWG members on
these planning criteria, the majority of CWG members felt that the water supply planning criteria
(used in the Halligan permitting process) were set at reasonable levels. The Water Board also
discussed and considered changes to these criteria during its November 2011 meeting, but decided
they should remain the same to avoid potential delay to the Halligan permitting process.
At the January 2012 work session, some Council expressed concern with having a planning demand
level that is above our current water use level (150 GPCD) and water conservation goal (140
GPCD), and wanted a clearer explanation of the planning criteria and how they relate to the City’s
water supply needs, the size of Halligan Reservoir and the City’s water use and conservation efforts.
As a result, Council did not feel the Policy was ready for adoption. A summary of its feedback
during the work session is attached (Attachment 1), along with staff responses to Council’s issues
(Attachment 2).
129
October 30, 2012
Following the City Council work session, Utilities staff contacted the Corps to ask how changes to
the planning criteria in the Policy would affect the Halligan Reservoir permitting process. The
Corps stated it conducts an independent study of the City’s water supply needs and that the planning
criteria values being used in the process seemed reasonable. Prior to issuance of a permit, the
Corps will revisit these values and make adjustments as necessary. This input allowed for some
flexibility in the planning criteria values used in the updated Policy.
Utilities staff met with the Water Board’s Water Supply Committee on April 16, 2012 and the full
Water Board on July 19, 2012 to discuss potential options for changing the water supply planning
criteria. Changes to these criteria focused mainly on revising the planning demand level (in GPCD)
and the storage reserve factor (SRF). Several options for changing these criteria were presented
by staff, including the previous 162 GPCD and 15% SRF, 150 GPCD and 15% SRF and 140 GPCD
and 20% SRF. After some discussion, the Water Board voted unanimously to revise the updated
Policy to include the planning criteria suggested by the Water Supply Committee of 150 GPCD and
20% storage reserve factor. The Board’s discussions are described in the attached Letter of
Support and Water Board minutes (Attachments 3 and 4).
In addition to the issues regarding the water supply planning criteria, Council wanted the updated
Policy to include more focus on economic development and water innovation as well as a discussion
on the relationship of population growth to water supply and demand planning. The updated Policy
now includes these changes, along with the revised water supply planning criteria recommended
by Water Board.
The Council work session, scheduled for August 28, 2012 to further discuss the updated Policy
(among other topics), was cancelled. Following the cancelled work session, Council Leadership
reviewed the material provided and determined that an additional work session was not necessary
and asked that the updated Policy be presented to City Council for formal adoption.
Supporting Information
Water Use
The City currently delivers about 26,000 acre-feet/year of treated water and 4,000 acre-feet/year
of raw water (which irrigates the City’s parks, golf courses, etc.). Demand levels have declined
significantly over the last few decades from around 230 GPCD in the early 1990s to about 200
GPCD before the drought year of 2002. The average use over the last several years (2006-2011
normalized use) has been about 150 GPCD, indicating a 25 percent reduction in per capita water
use from before 2002. The majority of these water use reductions have come from the City’s
residential customers, but the commercial sector has also reduced its water use significantly. These
reductions are a result of water conservation efforts by our customers that have been aided by the
City becoming fully water metered in 2003 (along with tiered and seasonal rate structures) and the
Utilities water conservation program. Utilities conducted a landscape preference survey with an
online survey panel to gage customer’s desire for changing landscapes in Fort Collins as it relates
to the potential for additional water conservation and its potential impact on existing landscapes.
Results of the survey indicated general satisfaction with current landscapes in Fort Collins
(especially trees) and support for additional xeriscape. Results indicated no strong opinion
regarding additional water conservation, which coincides with recent general Utilities surveys that
indicate the majority of customers believe water conservation efforts are at the correct level.
130
October 30, 2012
Water Supply Sources
The City’s water supplies generally come from two main sources: the Poudre River and the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT). On average, the City gets about half its treated water
supply from each of these sources each year. The City’s Poudre River water supplies include its
senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights (mostly from shares in the irrigation ditches
that run through the City) and the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir system. The CBT
supplies are administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), which
allocates the supplies to unit owners through a variable annual quota. The City receives delivery
of its allocated water from Horsetooth Reservoir and does not own or operate that reservoir.
Policies of the NCWCD limit carryover of unused CBT water in the project facilities (including
Horsetooth Reservoir). The yield of the City’s water supplies is mostly dependent on snowmelt
runoff, which is subject to high annual and monthly variability. Because the City plans for its water
supply system to meet demands through a 1-in-50 year drought, there are adequate supplies in most
years. The City can currently meet about 31,000 acre-feet/year of treated water demands through
the 1-in-50 year drought without restrictions.
Future Water Demands and Supplies
The Water Utility is expecting a future projected need of approximately 37,400 acre-feet/year of
treated water demands by 2050 (at 150 GPCD). The increase in demand is mostly from a projected
increase in population of around 35,000 people in the Water Utility service area, but also includes
an increase in large contractual use of approximately 3,000 acre-feet/year. This future demand
should be near a build-out condition, since the Water Utility has a limited growth potential due to
surrounding water districts. These districts will meet some of the future water demands projected
within the City’s Growth Management Area.
The City will continue to acquire additional water rights and/or cash in-lieu-of water rights through
Raw Water Requirements, which requires developers to turn in water rights or cash to meet the
water needs of additional development. The City has been working towards acquiring and/or
developing storage capacity to help manage its current and future water rights. Operational
storage is a critical need to help meet legal requirements associated with the City’s converted
agricultural rights. The City is pursuing local gravel pits to meet these operational storage needs.
Carryover and vulnerability protection storage can help meet the City’s projected future demands,
as well as provide a storage reserve for disruptions to the City’s supply system. The City is pursuing
the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir to meet these types of storage needs.
Water Supply Planning Criteria
As discussed above, these criteria determine the amount of water supplies and/or facilities the City
needs (e.g., the amount of storage required) and should be somewhat conservative to account for
uncertainties in water supply planning. The 1-in-50 year drought criterion defines the level of risk
for the City’s water supply system. The 20% storage reserve factor provides a short-term supply
to address emergency situations. This factor incorporates having 20% of annual demand in storage
(through the 1-in-50 year drought), which equates to about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demand
or about 1.5 months of summer demand. Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin for meeting the
storage reserve would help diversify the City’s water supply system, which is highly reliant on CBT
storage. The 150 GPCD planning demand level is higher than the 140 GPCD water conservation
131
October 30, 2012
goal to account for uncertainties in water supply planning, such as the potential effects of climate
change.
Water supply planning is a long-term process with many uncertainties. The water supply planning
criteria seek to balance the benefits and risks of developing a reliable water supply with the
associated costs and impacts of doing so. These criteria determine the amount of supplies and/or
facilities needed, but it is the City’s water use that mostly impacts the river system (except for
construction and inundation impacts to the river). Planning for higher water use levels could
provide the City more flexibility to use supplies for other benefits such as supporting local
agriculture, if the City continues to reduce water use (e.g., meets the water conservation goal).
Surplus Raw Water
The City has surplus supplies in many years as a result of planning its supplies for meeting demands
through a 1-in-50 year drought. Most of these surplus supplies are currently rented to agriculture
on a year-to-year basis that generate revenue and help reduce water customer rates. The City
recognizes recent interest in entering long-term arrangements with agricultural renters. Any unused
or unrented surplus water is essentially left in the River, which is typically diverted by the next
senior water right(s). Using the City’s surplus supplies for instream flows is currently difficult
under current Colorado water law. However, Utilities staff is working with other City departments
and the State of Colorado on initiatives to improve Poudre River flows.
Environmental Considerations
The City’s water use reduces flows in the Poudre River and other watersheds. However, most of
the flow reductions on the Poudre River (between the lower Poudre Canyon and the middle of Fort
Collins) are from irrigation company diversions. Most diversions for the City’s future uses will not
reduce flows through Fort Collins, since the City will mostly use water from converted agricultural
shares that have historically diverted upstream of Fort Collins.
Key Policy Elements
The Policy update has significantly changed from the current Policy adopted in 2003 and was
developed with much input from the CWG, as well as some revisions from the Water Board and City
Council. The following are the key updated Policy elements:
• General Policy Language and Introduction
In order to align with Plan Fort Collins and incorporate sustainability concepts, references to
policies stated in Plan Fort Collins and incorporation of triple bottom line concepts (considering
economic, environmental and social aspects) have been added throughout the Policy update,
especially in the introduction.
• Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management
This section reduces the average daily use (water conservation) goal to 140 GPCD by 2020,
compared to 185 GPCD in the current policy. This revised goal was developed in the 2009 Water
Conservation Plan, which includes programs and measures used to reach the goal. Since it may be
132
October 30, 2012
updated on a more regular basis (at least every 7 years), future conservation goals will be adjusted
by subsequent Water Conservation Plans. The Policy also states the peak day use goal of 350
GPCD by 2020, compared to 475 GPCD in the current policy. In addition, this section mentions
the use of water rate structures to provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently and how
population growth is connected to water supply and use.
• Water Supply Reliability
This section uses the three main planning criteria discussed above to develop the City’s water
supply system. The Policy states that the City’s water supplies should be maintained to meet an
average demand of 150 GPCD through at least a 1-in-50 year drought, while maintaining 20% of
annual demand in storage through that drought. These criteria are designed to deal with potential
uncertainties in water supply planning, one of which is the potential effects of climate change. In
addition, this section mentions maintaining a plan for responding to projected water supply
shortages.
• Additional Supplies and Facilities
This section addresses alternatives for meeting the City’s future needs that best fit the City’s water
supply system. It includes working towards long-term water sharing arrangements with agriculture
and is not specific about the amount of storage capacity required.
• Water Quality
This section focuses on protecting our watersheds and maintaining the taste and quality of our
treated water.
• Surplus Raw Water
This section includes a strong commitment to use the Utilities surplus supplies for beneficial
purposes such as supporting local agriculture and supplementing flows in the Poudre River.
• Regional Cooperation
This section directs the City to maintain good working relationships with regional entities that are
affected by the City’s water use and supply planning.
Once the updated Policy is approved, Utilities staff and consultants will create a report that
summarizes the updated Policy and provide supporting information. This report will be provided
to City Council and others once completed.
Summary
The Water Board’s recommended changes to the water supply planning criteria and the options
presented to it should provide an adequate and reliable water supply with only a slight change to
the previously projected amount of water supplies and/or facilities required to meet the City’s future
needs. Also, the updated Policy will provide further direction regarding the planning, management,
and maintenance of the City’s water supply system needed to assure a safe, reliable drinking water
133
October 30, 2012
supply and incorporates an appropriate level of water conservation. It will also provide guidance
on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other beneficial purposes for its
citizens and the surrounding community.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Reliable water supplies are essential to providing economic health and sustainability in Fort
Collins. These supplies provide economic and social benefits to the City’s citizens, businesses and
surrounding community by having adequate water for health and public safety; home, school and
industrial use; and healthy landscapes. The updated Policy will guide the Utilities in preparing for
future water supply needs and continued demand management. Most of the Utilities operations
associated with the Policy update are currently funded, such as the Water Resources Division and
the Water Conservation Program. Most of the actions, projects and/or programs that will be guided
by the updated Policy are either already approved (including funding) by City Council or will be
brought before them in future individual actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The updated Policy will guide the Utilities’ actions, projects and programs that may have both
positive and negative environmental impacts. In general, the City’s use of local and regional water
supplies has adverse effects on its surrounding natural environments. However, actions taken
through the City’s water conservation and other efforts help to reduce those impacts. The updated
Policy seeks to balance the benefits of providing a reliable water supply with the environmental
impacts associated with providing that supply. Individual actions, projects and/or programs that
will be guided by the updated Policy will be brought before the City Council in the future, at which
point the environmental impacts can be more fully described.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Water Board unanimously voted to approve the updated Policy with adjustments to the water
supply planning criteria mentioned above in the background section. The Board’s discussions are
described in the attached Letter of Support and Water Board Minutes.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Much of the work for the Policy update was performed in 2011, including an extensive public
outreach effort mainly through the formation of a Community Working Group (CWG). Six meetings
were held with the CWG to inform and discuss policy issues and their direct input was used to
develop the updated Policy. Their input and discussions were documented in a memorandum that
was provided with the January 10, 2012 work session materials, which is still available for review
on the City’s website at www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. A letter from CWG member Gary
Wockner (Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper), who requested it be given to City Council and
Water Board, along with staff responses to those comments are attached for review (Attachments
5 and 6). The Water Board was involved throughout the entire Policy update process in order to
provide City Council with its recommendations. In addition to the outreach with the CWG and
Water Board, much of the Policy update information was posted on the City’s website, a landscape
preference survey was conducted with a Utilities customer online survey panel, and presentations
were given to 12 other City boards and interested organizations (22 groups were contacted). A
134
October 30, 2012
letter from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners is attached for review (Attachment
7). Through these various public outreach efforts, the three levels of the public engagement
spectrum (inform and consult, involve and collaborate) were employed. Opportunities were
provided in all these efforts for individuals to provide comments on the Policy update, which
provided few comments which were similar to the CWG and Water Board input. Given this level
of public outreach and since additional outreach was not requested during the January 10, 2012
work session, no additional outreach was performed.”
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager, stated this Policy helps guide the Utilities in balancing
water supplies and demands. The objective of the Policy is to ensure a safe, adequate, and reliable
supply of water for the use of customers and the community, while managing the level of demand
and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource. A community working group helped develop
the language with participation from the Water Board and other boards, as well. Dustin discussed
the main changes in the Policy, which include a reduced water conservation goal, acknowledgment
of planning criteria which consider climate change, and a stronger commitment to use surplus
supplies.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the term “sustainability” is over-used and discussed
the possibility of re-using water.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked how building Halligan Reservoir supports the healthy, natural
environment. Dustin replied the wording referenced by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson attempts to relay
a triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental objectives.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested alternative wording. Dustin replied the item could return before
Council at a later date or could possibly be amended this evening.
Mayor Weitkunat asked how fires and other water supply disruptions fit into the Policy. Dustin
replied disasters and disruptions are included in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan. The
Plan has not gone into effect as a result of the High Park fire, though there is a potential for
restrictions in the future.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the impact of Halligan Reservoir on water storage. Dustin
replied it will double the amount of storage in the Poudre basin.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if staff is comfortable with the final Policy document. Dustin replied
the working group represents the community and he is comfortable with the document. Kevin
Gertig, Water Resources/Treatment Operations Manager, replied he is comfortable with the
document as it is proactive; however, staff would like to take Council’s input and adapt accordingly.
Councilmember Troxell commended staff work on the Policy. He suggested the Policy allow for
the explicit inclusion of innovation.
Councilmember Manvel stated the inclusion of in-stream flow information and climate change are
examples of innovation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the item be postponed to future consent agenda after wording
changes are made to include Council’s suggestions.
135
October 30, 2012
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 2012-099 to the November 6, 2012 meeting. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
136
November 6, 2012
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, November 6,
2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Troxell and Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmembers Kottwitz and Poppaw arrived at 6:03 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Eckman, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry withdrew Item No. 27, Resolution 2012-103 Making Findings of Fact and
Related Determinations Regarding the Appeal of the August 7, 2012 Administrative Hearing
Officer’s Decision Regarding the Aspen Heights PDP, to the Discussion Agenda.
Citizen Participation
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, discussed the United States Constitution and its relationship to
the duties of public officials.
Bill Mullaney accused City officials of corruption.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the appropriate role of government and opposed
City funding of the Rocky Mountain Innosphere and expressed concern regarding the fact that the
downtown ice skating rink was not funded.
CONSENT CALENDAR
BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2013.
Ordinance No. 107, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, sets
the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) 2013 Operations and Maintenance Budget
amount of $769,440 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the administrative operations
budget; appropriates the 2013 Line of Credit Draw in the amount of $1,000,000; sets the
amount of $3,197,535 for debt service payments to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013; and
137
November 6, 2012
sets the 2013 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year
2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority’s financial
plan for 2013.
7. Items Relating to Water and Electric Development Fees and Charges for 2013.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
The proposed water increase is a flat 4% across the board to all customer classes. Electric
development fees are proposed to decrease an average of 2.4% for residential and decrease
an average of 1.6% for commercial development. There are no changes in the monthly rates
for wastewater or stormwater services being proposed for 2013. Both Ordinances were
unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012.
NON- BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
8. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting and
the October 23, 2012 Adjourned Meeting.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail
at East Trilby Road.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates
a $200,000 trail grant received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the completion of the
Fossil Creek Trail at East Trilby Road.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2012, Appropriating a Grant from Great Outdoors
Colorado for the City’s Portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional
Trail Initiative Grant.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2012, appropriates
a grant received from Great Outdoors Colorado in the amount of $737,597. The funds will
be used as part of Fort Collins’ portion of the Poudre River Corridor & Regional Trail
Initiative project. The grant request includes open space acquisitions, trail easements, and
trail development along the Poudre River from Fort Collins to Greeley. The total grant
project cost is $8,074,826, with the Great Outdoors Colorado grant being in the amount of
$5,098,150. The City of Fort Collins portion of the project is $1,558,880, with the Great
Outdoors Colorado grant amount being $737,597.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2012, Approving a Fourth Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Eliminating Original Terms Related to the
138
November 6, 2012
Boxelder Overflow Project and Establishing the Terms of Cost Sharing for Design
Engineering of Substituted Improvements in the Boxelder Basin.
On February 17, 2009, the City of Fort Collins (City) and the Town of Timnath (Timnath)
entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) regarding annexations, growth
management, and related issues. The IGA resolved certain differences that had arisen
between the City and Timnath concerning a variety of planning and growth management
issues. The IGA sets forth provisions for the funding, design and construction of the
Boxelder Overflow Project. The IGA has been amended three times since for items such as
the extension of deadlines for approval of the respective growth management areas and the
deletion of all references to Timnath’s possible purchase of the Vangbo property.
The parties have determined that development of the Boxelder Overflow Project originally
contemplated by Timnath as described in the Intergovernmental Agreement is neither
feasible nor desirable, and have further identified a mutually beneficial alternative approach
to address flood impacts in the Boxelder Creek Basin as it impacts Timnath and Fort Collins,
referred to as the Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects. In order to move forward
cooperatively to further investigate, conceptually plan and preliminarily design the Boxelder
Creek Flood Mitigation Projects, the parties desire to apply toward those Projects a portion
of the funds previously paid into an escrow account by Fort Collins in accordance with
Article 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on October 16, 2012, approves the Fourth Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement in order to clarify and document the City and Timnath’s
intentions and mutual rights and responsibilities with respect to the Boxelder Overflow
Project and Boxelder Creek Flood Mitigation Projects.
Between First Reading and Second Reading the proposed Amendment has been revised to
specifically allow for Timnath to carry out the funding of the Boxelder Creek Flood
Mitigation Projects through the Timnath Development Agency.
12. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid
by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange
at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended
Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate
25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with the Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the
intersection of State Highway 392. The IGA states that, by March 31, 2011, the City and
Windsor will take certain actions to implement the fee requirements identified in the IGA.
City Council has adopted several resolutions extending this deadline, the most recent
extension being to October 16, 2012.
139
November 6, 2012
Ordinance No. 117, 2012, will establish the specifics of a special fee to be paid by the
Property Owners near the interchange. The fee includes two parts and is summarized as
follows:
• The first part of the fee is in proportion to the anticipated appreciation in property
value as a result of the interchange improvements. This amount has been determined
from an appraisal report prepared by a licensed MAI appraiser (the "Foster Study").
• The second part of the fee is based on the relative impacts that the development or
redevelopment of the properties will have on the Interchange, as measured by the
estimated number of additional vehicular trips that will be generated by the
developed use of the properties.
Based on negotiation with the Property Owners, the City and Town have created a second
option for Property Owners. Property Owners signing an agreement with the City would be
permitted to defer payment of the entire amount of the fee until their properties are
developed or redeveloped, the amount of their fee would be capped at the amount estimated
in the agreement, and no interest would accrue on their fee for a period of two years from
the date of execution of the agreement.
Ordinance No. 118, 2012, adopts the modified IGA first approved by City Council on
December 21, 2010, now revised to be consistent with the implementation of the fees as
described above. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on October
23, 2012.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and
Related Activities.
The Fort Collins Housing Authority paid the City of Fort Collins $15,457 as the 2010 and
2011 payments for public services and facilities. The Authority requests that the City refund
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to fund sorely needed affordable housing-related
activities and to attend to the low-income housing needs of Fort Collins residents.
Resolution 1992-093 reinstated the requirement that the Authority make annual PILOT
payments to the City. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in
accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council
determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has remitted the
PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at
County Road 38E Project.
The City has received the grant payment from Great Outdoors Colorado for the construction
of the Fossil Creek Trail at County Road 38E project. Great Outdoors Colorado had
awarded the City a Special Opportunity Grant for the completion of the Fossil Creek Trail
140
November 6, 2012
from north of Cathy Fromme Prairie to the Spring Canyon Community Park. Construction
of the project was completed this past spring.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City
Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
The City Code requires annual adjustments to certain building permit related fees. Capital
Improvement Expansion fees and Neighborhood Parkland fees are to follow the changes in
the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI). Street Oversizing fees are
adjusted by the changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has
increased 1.8% and the ENR has increased 1.6%. Additionally the Code is being updated
to reference to the most recent amended manual, The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th
Edition, 2008.
Staff is working with a consultant who specializes in capital impact fees to re-evaluate the
underlying assumptions and formulas used to calculate the City’s fees. A presentation is
scheduled for a work session on February 12, 2013 and formal consideration on March 5,
2013.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code
Pertaining to Contractor Licenses.
Community Development and Neighborhood Services is responsible for the enforcement of
the contractor licensing requirements found in Chapter 15 of the City Code. The changes
proposed will update the current Code by:
• clarifying minimum experience and qualification requirements at the application
stage
• creating license categories that better align with the adopted residential and
commercial building codes
• streamlining the application and project verification process
• establishing registration requirements for the currently non-licensed category of
workers
• increasing minimum liability amounts to recognized industry levels.
17. Items Relating to the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code
Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets.
B. Resolution 2012-100 Updating the List of Names for Arterial and Collector Streets.
This Ordinance amends the City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets
so that City Council ,rather than the developer, would select the name of the new street. The
Resolution will update the current list of names for arterial and collector streets.
141
November 6, 2012
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board.
The Transportation Board currently consists of eleven members appointed by the City
Council, and is one of the larger advisory boards. At the end of 2012, the terms of four
members will expire. One of those members is not eligible for reappointment because that
member has met the Council-adopted two term limit. Another member is eligible but is not
interested in reappointment. This provides an opportunity for Council to consider changes
to the size of the Board without negatively impacting any current members. This
opportunity was presented to the Board by staff, and the Board voted to recommend that the
Council reduce the size from eleven to nine members. This Ordinance amends the City
Code to reduce the size of the Board to nine members.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating
Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning
and Zoning Board Review.
On October 9, 2012, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amending the Land Use
Code (LUC) to require larger multi-family housing developments (50 dwelling units, or 75
bedrooms) to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). A Type 2 review
requires that the developer hold a pre-submittal neighborhood meeting. The benefit to the
neighborhood meeting is that the public is given an opportunity to provide input on a project
while it is still in the early stages of development. In recent months a large amount of multi-
family housing developments have been appealed by concerned citizens to Council based
on the assertion that the projects are not compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. This
proposed procedural change seeks to provide more opportunity for the public to participate
in the development review process for multi-family housing projects.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to
Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best
Management Practices and Stream Restoration.
The City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Master Plan has been updated to include stormwater
quality and stream restoration projects, alongside the already identified stormwater flood
control projects. The Master Plan update utilizes results and information obtained from the
Stormwater Utility Repurposing program in conjunction with basin and stream specific
recommendations obtained from the following two program efforts:
A. Basin-Specific Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Selected
Plans; and,
B. Stream Restoration and Stability Study and Prioritization with the Multi Criteria
Decision Analysis (MCDA) Tool.
The BMP Selected Plans include recommendations for the treatment of stormwater within
portions of the City that developed prior to the adoption of stormwater quality criteria. The
majority of the BMP projects include the retrofit of existing stormwater detention ponds to
include water quality treatment facilities. Funding for the construction of the identified BMP
142
November 6, 2012
and stream restoration projects will be drawn from existing stormwater fees. This funding
request is included in the current 2013/2014 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process for
Environmental Health.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation
Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement.
The Natural Areas Department (NAD) purchased the 137-acre Maxwell Farm, along with
12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water, with the intent of placing it
under a conservation easement to help conserve a buffer between Fort Collins and
Wellington; protect the open space and scenic values adjacent to I-25; and, sell it as an
agricultural property with limited development rights. These purposes are supported by the
Natural Areas Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan
for the Department. The land has been leased to Larry Maxwell, the previous owner, for
farming and livestock feeding since the initial purchase in 2009.
Natural Areas and Utilities have worked out an agreement for the NAD to sell eleven of the
twelve NPIC shares to Utilities for approximately 50% of the estimated market value, which
is $14,000 per share (based on recent sales information from NPIC). In exchange, Utilities
will enter into a raw water transfer agreement with the buyer of Maxwell Farm, and per the
terms of the agreement, Utilities will transfer the equivalent of eleven shares of NPIC water
on an annual basis to the Maxwell Farm in perpetuity. The advantage to Utilities is that
water decreed solely for agricultural use derived from other Utilities-owned NPIC shares,
can be substituted for water decreed for municipal use derived from the eleven NPIC shares,
which Utilities can use. The buyer will purchase the remaining share of NPIC water as it is
a NPIC policy that a farm must own at least some NPIC water in order to receive any rented
or transferred water. The single NPIC share to be owned by the buyer will also be tied to the
land by the conservation easement agreement.
The funds received from the sale of the land and water will be used to conserve additional
land and water.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement.
The Vangbo Property was purchased by the Natural Areas Department (NAD) in 2005 with
the intent to place a conservation easement on the property to conserve the open space and
scenic values along the I-25 corridor and then sell it as an agricultural property with limited
development options. These purposes are supported by the Natural Areas Land
Conservation and Stewardship Plan, the Council-adopted master plan for the Department.
The land is currently leased to Alison Person, a neighboring landowner, for grazing. Staff
recommends selling the 105-acre Vangbo property and associated ditch and water rights with
a reserved conservation easement to Alison Person for $300,000. The conservation easement
does not allow any future development, but does give the landowner the option to request
the purchase of one building envelope on the property from a future City Council. The
undeveloped portion would remain in agricultural use.
143
November 6, 2012
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC.
Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC is planning a 39.53 acre residential development called Mail Creek
Crossing PLD/PD located just north of Bacon Elementary School on South Timberline Road.
This development will require the construction of off-site stormwater outfall improvements
on adjacent property to the north in order to connect with a stormwater pipe in Kechter
Road. The alignment of these improvements will cross the northwest corner of a property
owned by the City’s Social Sustainability Department. The City’s 16-acre property was
purchased in 2006 as a Land Bank property and is currently leased as a residential/horse
property. In order to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the developer
has requested a 2,346 square foot non-exclusive drainage easement from the City in the
northwest corner of the City property adjacent to Kechter Road.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company.
Nunn Telephone Company (NTC) currently provides telephone and internet services to
portions of northwest Weld County and northeast Larimer County. With an increase in
demand from their customers for broadband services, NTC has begun upgrading copper
based telephone lines to fiber optic broadband lines. NTC has requested a utility easement
from the City of Fort Collins across a portion of Meadow Springs Ranch in order to install
approximately 7.0 miles of fiber optic line as part of this upgrade project. The proposed
easement alignment would follow an abandoned state highway now used by the City as an
access road to the City’s property.
25. Resolution 2012-101 Authorizing a Revocable Permit for Brinkman Construction, Inc. to
Access City Property to Complete Mitigation Activities for the Construction of Tilden
Street.
In 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 030, 2008, authorizing the dedication of a portion
of City property located at 2313 Kechter Road as Tilden Street. The property located west
of the City property has been planned as the Kechter Crossing development. Tilden Street
is located along the property boundary between the two properties. The developer of
Kechter Crossing, Brinkman Construction, Inc., plans to begin construction of its
development soon, including work within the new right-of-way of Tilden Street. This work
will require the relocation of a number of site improvements in the right-of-way areas that
are owned by the City. City staff has asked the Developer to relocate and replace a number
of these site improvements elsewhere on the City property. The revocable permit will allow
the developer access to the City property to perform the requested mitigation activities.
26. Resolution 2012-102 Naming Three Alleys Within the Block Bounded by South College
Avenue, West Laurel Street, South Mason Street and West Myrtle Street.
The Downtown Development Authority has completed a capital improvement project to
enhance three public alleys in the aforementioned block. In conjunction with this project,
the City of Fort Collins is preparing to name these three alleys. The three proposed names
are “Dalzell Alley,” “Corbin Alley,” and “Wattles Alley.” If approved, the alley naming will
144
November 6, 2012
simplify way-finding for pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, delivery personnel and emergency
responders.
27. Resolution 2012-103 Making Findings of Fact and Related Determinations Regarding the
Appeal of the August 7, 2012 Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Regarding the
Aspen Heights PDP.
On August 16, 2012, the City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer issued a written decision
approving Aspen Heights PDP, with one condition ensuring proper landscaping associated
with the clubhouse. On August 30, 2012, Mr. Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking
redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision.
On October 30, 2012, City Council voted 5 - 0 to modify the Hearing Officer’s decision by
requiring the following:
1. It shall be a condition of approval of the PDP that the applicant provide a shuttle bus
for use of project residents, with the understanding that if there is insufficient
ridership demand to sustain such shuttle bus, then the applicant may apply for a
minor amendment to the approved Final Plan to reduce or eliminate the shuttle bus
requirements of this condition.
2. It shall be a condition of approval of the P.D.P. that the applicant shall, at the time
of submittal of the Final Plan and in consultation with City staff, enhance the design
of the naturalized drainage channel transecting the property in such a manner as to
provide an increased width and vegetation diversity; and to enhance the regional
stormwater detention pond through variation in grading patterns and vegetation
diversity, to the extent reasonably feasible.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution
making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal.
28. Postponement of Resolution 2012-099 Adopting a Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy to November 20, 2012.
At the October 30, 2012 Adjourned Meeting, Council voted to postpone consideration of this
Resolution to November 6 to allow time for staff to revise the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy, based on Council’s input. There is not adequate time to make these
revisions and provide supporting material before the publication of the November 6 agenda.
Staff requests postponement of consideration of this Resolution to November 20, 2012.
29. Routine Deeds.
Three quit claim deeds, encompassing 105 easements within the Southwest Enclave
Annexation from Poudre Valley REA. These easements were transferred to the City along
with the purchase of Poudre Valley REA’s electric systems in the annexation.
30. Routine Easement.
145
November 6, 2012
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from TAV Property
Management, Inc., to install an electric transformer at 504 South College Avenue.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2012, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
of the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Relating to the Annual
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2013 and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2013.
7. Items Relating to Water and Electric Development Fees and Charges for 2013.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Water Rates and Charges.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code to Revise Electric Development Fees and Charges.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail
at East Trilby Road.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2012, Appropriating a Grant from Great Outdoors
Colorado for the City’s Portion of Larimer County’s Poudre River Corridor and Regional
Trail Initiative Grant.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2012, Approving a Fourth Amendment to the Fort
Collins-Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Cooperation on Annexation,
Growth Management, and Related Issues, Eliminating Original Terms Related to the
Boxelder Overflow Project and Establishing the Terms of Cost Sharing for Design
Engineering of Substituted Improvements in the Boxelder Basin.
12. Items Relating to the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Project.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, Establishing a Special Fee to Be Paid
by the Owners of Property Within Close Proximity to the Reconstructed Interchange
at the Intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, Approving the First Amended
Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate
25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
36. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to
Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges
146
November 6, 2012
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and
Related Activities.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
from Great Outdoors Colorado in the Conservation Trust Fund for the Fossil Creek Trail at
County Road 38E Project.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the
Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City
Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2012, Amending Chapter 15 of the City Code
Pertaining to Contractor Licenses.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code
Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2012, Amending Section 2-427 of the City Code
Relating to Membership of the Transportation Board.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code by Designating
Certain Types of Multi-family Housing Development Projects as Being Subject to Planning
and Zoning Board Review.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to
Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best
Management Practices and Stream Restoration.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Maxwell Farm and Related Water Rights Subject to a Conservation
Easement and Authorizing a Related Raw Water Transfer Agreement.
22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City-owned
Property Known as the Vangbo Property Subject to a Conservation Easement.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Easement on City Property to Cloud Peak Ranch, LLC.
24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Utility Easement on City Property to the Nunn Telephone Company.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
147
November 6, 2012
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested follow-up and details regarding community parkland fees and
capital expansion fees prior to Second Reading regarding Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance
No. 121, 2012, Amending the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement
Expansion Fees Contained in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code so as to Reflect Inflation in Associated
Costs of Services.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted, with regard to Item No. 20, First Reading of Ordinance No. 125,
2012 Amending Section 26-543 of the City Code to Update the Stormwater Master Drainage Plans
to Include Basin-Specific Water Quality Best Management Practices and Stream Restoration, that
90% of the public wants streams restored in Fort Collins but the current funding scenario means it
will take at least 80 years or longer to accomplish that goal.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Troxell reported on a tour of Colorado Iron and Metal. He requested a report
regarding waste diversion and the relationship of these types of private sector businesses to the City.
Councilmember Manvel reported on an event for the Dental Connections Program and discussed
Make a Difference Day.
Councilmember Horak reported on a winter clothing distribution program sponsored by the North
Fort Collins Business Association.
Resolution 2012-103
Making Findings of Fact and Related Determinations Regarding the
Appeal of the August 7, 2012 Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision
Regarding the Aspen Heights PDP, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 16, 2012, the City of Fort Collins Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving
Aspen Heights PDP, with one condition ensuring proper landscaping associated with the clubhouse.
On August 30, 2012, Mr. Tom Lawton filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing
Officer’s decision.
On October 30, 2012, City Council voted 5 - 0 to modify the Hearing Officer’s decision by requiring
the following:
1. The applicant must provide a shuttle bus for use of project residents, with the understanding
that if there is insufficient ridership demand to support the need for the shuttle bus, the
applicant may apply for a minor amendment to the approved Final Plan to reduce or
eliminate this shuttle bus requirement.
148
November 6, 2012
2. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall, at the time of submittal of the Final
Plan and in consultation with City staff: (a) enhance the design of the naturalized drainage
channel transecting the property in such a manner as to provide an increased width and/or
vegetation diversity provided that such enhancement does not unduly diminish the capacity
of the channel to carry the anticipated stormwater flow; and (b) enhance the wetland
mitigation area through increased size and/or vegetation diversity.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council should adopt a Resolution making
findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the Appeal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Appellants’ Notices of Appeal were based on allegations that the Hearing Officer failed to
conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code.
At the October 30, 2012 hearing on the matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the
appellants and the applicants. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that
the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Regarding the issue of whether or not the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code, Council offered a motion to determine that the Hearing Officer
did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code subject to two
conditions. This motion had the effect of modifying the Hearing Officer’s decision by adding the
two aforementioned requirements. City Council voted 5 – 0 to approve the motion thus modifying
the decision of the Hearing Officer.”
Councilmembers Horak and Kottwitz recused themselves from the discussion of Resolution 2012-
103 Making Findings of Fact and Related Determinations Regarding the Appeal of the August 7,
2012 Administrative Hearing Officer’s Decision Regarding the Aspen Heights PDP.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-103.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated a contract does not exist between the City and the
developer to require shuttle service from the development.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a friendly amendment to rephrase a statement relating to the
wildlife corridor to be: “as to provide an increased width and vegetation diversity.”
Councilmembers Manvel and Poppaw accepted the amendment to the motion.
Councilmember Manvel requested input as to whether or not statements made in this Resolution
have any legal weight. Deputy City Attorney Eckman replied the Land Use Code allows for both
the Planning and Zoning Board and Council to impose conditions on the approval of a development
project. All requirements and conditions are outlined in a development agreement with the
developer, which is recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. The methods of
enforcement are set out in the Land Use Code.
149
November 6, 2012
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal of the August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision to Approve a Variance to Allow the Existing Off-premise Sign (Billboard)
Located in the BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road
to Be Removed and Reinstalled at a New Location Within the Same Railroad
Right of Way at 190 West Prospect Road, Board’s Decision Overturned
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 9, 2012, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered Appeal #2714, submitted by the
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department. This Appeal was for a variance to Section 3.8.7(P)
of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), which prohibits the construction of new off-
premise signs. The variance was requested in order to allow the existing off-premise sign in the
BNSF Railroad right of way on the north side of Prospect Road to be relocated within the railroad
right of way 70 feet west of its current location. The sign’s current location is in direct conflict with
the guideway alignment for the MAX BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project. The ZBA unanimously
approved the variance request as authorized by Section 2.10.1 of the LUC.
On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson (the Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal with the City
Clerk. The Appellant alleges that the ZBA:
A. Failed to conduct a fair hearing in that:
1. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly
misleading;
2. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure;
3. The Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction.
B. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Sign Code was amended in 1994 to prohibit the construction of new off-premise signs (aka
billboards) anywhere in the city. Existing off-premise signs were grandfathered in due to protection
afforded them by the Federal Highway Beautification Act. The sign that is the subject of this appeal
was constructed pursuant to a sign permit issued prior to 1994 and falls within the scope of the
Federal Highway Beautification Act.
The City of Fort Collins has purchased an easement within the BNSF Railroad right of way on the
east side of the tracks for the proposed MAX BRT guideway alignment. At the current location, the
150
November 6, 2012
existing off-premise sign is in direct conflict with the proposed guideway alignment. Removing the
sign without relocating it will require monetary compensation, as required by the Federal Highway
Beautification Act.
The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department submitted an application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, requesting a variance to relocate the existing sign within the railroad right of way, 70 feet
west of its current location. Removing an existing off-premise sign and reconstructing it in a
different location is equivalent to the construction of a new off-premise sign; therefore, a variance
is needed, even though the new location is on the same property. The setback distance from
Prospect Road at the new location will remain unchanged from the Prospect Road setback at the
sign’s current location.
The appellant, Richard Anderson, owns the two commercial properties at 200 and 220 West
Prospect Road, directly west of the Railroad right of way. Mr. Anderson testified at the August 9,
2012 ZBA meeting that he had concerns with billboards in general and with the effect that the
relocation of the subject sign might have on the value of his property. In particular, he was
concerned about the impact to his two properties if his tenant at 200 West Prospect decided to
advertise on the billboard, thereby increasing his business and creating a parking problem for the
tenants of his other building (lines 19 – 39, page 5 and lines 1 – 2, page 6 of the verbatim transcript,
Attachment 5). Mr. Anderson is appealing the decision of the ZBA.
ACTION OF THE ZBA
ZBA Appeal #2714 originally appeared on the July 12, 2012 ZBA agenda, but was postponed to the
August 9, 2012 hearing. After testimony from the staff, the applicant, and the public, the ZBA
unanimously approved the variance request on August 9, 2012 to allow the sign to be moved 70 feet
west of its current location.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the ZBA fail to conduct a fair hearing?
2. Did the ZBA fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On August 23, 2012, Richard L. Anderson filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk. The appeal
alleges that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Section 2.10.2(H).
A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing
Allegation: The ZBA considered evidence relevant to its findings which was grossly misleading.
Mr. Anderson states in the Notice of Appeal, “The ZBA further considered the facts that were
misleading in that information presented reflected that the signage was to be continued in
substantially the same form as it currently or has historically existed. The current sign has only one
used/usable sign face (viewable by eastbound traffic). It is understood that there is intent to
151
November 6, 2012
significantly increase the impact of the sign by allowing signage on both sides of the pole (viewable
from both east and west). The proposed signage would have a substantially greater impact than the
existing signage.”
Staff Response
The staff report provided to the ZBA and the verbatim transcript of the hearing contain no mention
of the existing sign having only one used or usable face or that the relocated sign might have two.
However, the slides contained in the staff’s Powerpoint presentation for the ZBA meeting show that
the existing sign has only one face and that a mock-up of the relocated sign at the new location
shows sign faces on both sides of the sign (see slides 3, 16, and 17 on Attachment 3). The motion-
maker moved to approve the variance based on the nominal, inconsequential standard of the LUC,
noting that “It’s on the same property, it’s the same sign, it’s moving west.” (Lines 14 - 17, page
12, and lines 11 - 23, page 13 of the verbatim transcript, Attachment 5). Since there was no
discussion during the hearing about the number of faces of the existing sign or of the proposed,
relocated sign, it’s difficult to determine that the board members considered evidence which was
grossly misleading or that they “understood that there is an intent to significantly increase the
impact of the sign…” as stated by Mr. Anderson.
Allegation: The ZBA substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure.
Another fair hearing argument raised by Mr. Anderson is that the ZBA ignored previously
established rules of procedure. However, the Appeal does not contain any specific assertions as to
how the ZBA ignored its established rules of procedure.
Staff Response
There are no specific assertions to respond to.
Allegation: The ZBA exceeded its authority and jurisdiction.
The Appellant argues that the Board exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in granting the variance
but presents no specific argument in support of that assertion, other than referencing Section 2.10.2
– Step 8 of the Land Use Code, which reads as follows:
Section 2.10.2 Variance Review Procedures
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a
variance from the standards of Articles 3 and 4 only if it finds that the granting of
the variance would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any
change in use other than to a use that is allowed subject to basic development
review; and that:
(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical
conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and
152
November 6, 2012
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the
occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or
hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which
complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or
(3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section
1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be supported by
specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements
and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2) or (3).
Staff Response
It is possible that the Appellant is arguing that a “new sign” could not be authorized by variance
because the granting of such a variance would be a “use variance” or a “change in use” which
would conflict with the standards in the aforementioned Section 2.10.2(H). However, that Section
and other Sections of 2.10 only prohibit the Board from authorizing certain types of “changes in
use” and there’s no mention at all of a prohibition against “use variances”.
ZBA Appeal #2714 was presented before the Board as a request for a variance from the requirement
of Land Use Code Section 3.8.7(P), which prohibits the construction of any new off-premise sign.
Since all of the permitted and prohibited uses in the Land Use Code are contained in the Article 4
zone district standards, and not in Article 3, the variance request was not for a variance to any of
the use standards in Article 4, but was rather a request only for relief from Section 3.8.7(P) of the
Land Use Code.
Section 3.8.7(A)(1) of the Land Use Code states that “Signs shall be permitted in the various zone
districts as accessory uses in accordance with the regulations contained in this Section.”
Additionally, Section 3.8.1, “Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses”, lists signs as an accessory
use. All zone districts in Article 4 authorize “accessory uses”. The property in question is located
in the CC – Community Commercial zone district wherein “accessory uses” are listed as a
permitted use (Section 4.18(B)(1)(a)2.). Staff believes that the construction of this billboard on the
other side of the railroad track does not constitute a “use variance” since the sign is classified as
an accessory use, which is a permitted use. Similarly, it is not a change in use since the current use
is an accessory use sign and the proposed use is an accessory use sign.
City Council must determine whether or not the ZBA exceeded its authority or jurisdiction by
granting the variance on the basis of any violation of Section 2.10.2(H) regarding uses.
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the City Code, the Land
Use Code and Charter, Specifically Land Use Code Section 2.10.2(H).
153
November 6, 2012
Allegation: The ZBA based its granting of the variance on the desire to save the City money.
The appellant argues that “The purpose for the ZBA’s granting of the subject variance can be
explained in no other way than a desire to save the City money. While it is certainly laudable that
the that City staff and the ZBA focused on preserving taxpayer dollars, Section 2.10.2 does not allow
the ZBA to grant a variance on the basis that there will be a positive impact on the public coffers.”
Staff response
On the question of the proper interpretation of the Land Use Code, Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land
Use Code is the section that is referenced in the Notice of Appeal. This section sets forth the
standards by which the ZBA is to make a determination as to whether or not a variance application
can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. In order to approve a variance, the Board
must find that the application satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
2.10.2(H)(1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical
conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the
occupant of such property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or
hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the occupant or applicant;
2.10.2(H)(2) the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a
proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; or
2.10.2(H)(3) the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the
Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be varied except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section
1.2.2.
The record reflects that the Board granted the variance after finding that it would not be detrimental
to the public good to grant the variance and that the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the
standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in
the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code
as contained in Section 1.2.2. (Beginning on line 14, page 12 of the verbatim transcript and
continuing to the end, Attachment 5).
The Appellant argues that the Board based its granting of the variance solely on the desire to save
money for the City (first paragraph on Page 1 of the Appellant’s attachment to the Notice of
Appeal). The record shows that there was discussion at the ZBA hearing regarding the requirement
to compensate the sign owner in the event the sign is required to be removed and not allowed to be
relocated. The staff report and the City Engineering Department’s justification statement that were
presented to the board also contained references to monetary compensation. However, the record
shows that no further discussion regarding such compensation occurred just prior to the motion to
154
November 6, 2012
approve the variance or during discussion on the motion and the actual vote. The Board granted
the variance upon the finding that it would not be detrimental to the public good to do so, and that
the granting of the variance fit the nominal and inconsequential requirement of Land Use Code
Section 2.10.2(H)(3).
The Council should examine the findings and motion of the Board in granting of the variance to
determine if the decision to approve the variance was on the basis of saving money or on the finding
that it would not be detrimental to the public good and that it satisfied the nominal and
inconsequential standard in Sec. 2.10.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
SUMMARY
The appellant alleges that the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Fort Collins Land Use Code.
The Staff Report presented to the Board concluded that the variance request satisfied one or more
of the standards necessary for the granting of a variance as required in Section 2.10.2(H) of the
Land Use Code. The ZBA unanimously approved ZBA Appeal #2714 after finding that the variance
request satisfied the nominal, inconsequential standard in Section 2.10.2(H)(3) of the Land Use
Code.
Council should review the record to determine whether or not the Board held a fair hearing and
whether or not the Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code in approving the variance to allow the existing off-premise sign at 190 West Prospect Road
to be relocated 70 feet to the west.”
City Attorney Roy stated Council will be considering an appeal of a Zoning Board of Appeals
decision. He outlined the appeal process and Council’s possible actions.
Councilmember Troxell stated he attended a site visit in order to determine the current and proposed
location of the sign.
Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, discussed the need for the sign relocation as its current location
is in direct conflict with the proposed route for the MAX/BRT project. The variance request to
relocate the sign was unanimously approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals which found the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good and found that the proposal satisfied the
nominal and inconsequential standard. Barnes briefly discussed the allegations of the appeal and
the staff response to those allegations. He noted the possibility of the new sign having two faces
was never discussed at the hearing.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Brad March, attorney representing the Anderson family, Appellant, stated the relocated sign would
be five feet from the border of the Anderson property. He argued the reason for the variance is
solely to save taxpayer dollars. He stated the Land Use Code no longer allows billboard signs;
therefore the relocation of this sign is detrimental to the public good.
155
November 6, 2012
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Terry Tyrrell, Design Consultant Project Manager for the MAX/BRT project, Applicant, stated the
variance to relocate the sign was requested in order to allow for the MAX/BRT project to go
forward. He argued the Zoning Board of Appeals did conduct a fair hearing.
Mark Barnes, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Shreck, LLC, Next Media representative, discussed
the cooperation and negotiations between the City and Next Media to relocate the sign. He noted
the Code does not define the term “detrimental to the public good” and argued that it is clear the
Zoning Board of Appeals determined this met the standard for a variance regardless of the cost. He
stated the existing sign will be relocated and there is nothing to prohibit Next Media from displaying
advertisements on both sides of the sign.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Mr. March again argued the sole reason for this variance is money savings; however, this sign is
detrimental to the public good as no billboard signs are allowed in the City. Additionally, it appears
this is going to be a two-sided sign which was never discussed at the Zoning Board of Appeals
hearing.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Mr. Barnes stated the fact the two-sided aspect was not discussed was because the exact sign, which
is already two-sided, is going to be relocated.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilmember Troxell stated there is no frame on the now empty side of the sign. He argued a
modification would be required in order to display on that side. Mr. Barnes replied this sign does
have brackets in place that will allow for the display of advertising on the second side.
Councilmember Troxell argued there is no existing framework for advertising on the second side.
Jamie Rideout, Next Media, replied the sign’s east face is engineered and built to have a face on it;
currently, it only has angle iron on which to attach a face.
Councilmember Troxell requested that Barnes explain his quote referencing the sign as a “new
sign.” Barnes replied the variance would not have been required if it were not a new sign. If a
structure is moved, it ceases to exist at its original location and needs to comply with all regulations
at the new location.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the new sign would need to comply with existing regulations. Barnes
replied regulations have not changed regarding height and setback for this particular sign since 1985.
The regulation that has changed, and therefore required a variance, was that the City no longer
allows off-premise signs.
Councilmember Manvel noted this variance is not nominal and inconsequential to the Anderson
family, nor is it nominal and inconsequential to the City as the sign’s value may now double with
156
November 6, 2012
advertising on two sides. Barnes replied the nominal and inconsequential finding is to be in the
context of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Manvel noted the long-term goal of the City is to remove these types of signs and
asked how it is not detrimental to the public good to up the future cost of that removal by changing
a one-sided sign to a two-sided sign. Barnes replied the original permit was issued for a two-sided
sign; therefore, the second side could have been installed at any point without an additional permit.
The replacement cost of the sign would be based on the sign being a two-sided sign, from the
perspective of Next Media.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, that the Zoning
Board of Appeals did not fail to conduct a fair hearing.
Councilmember Manvel noted a comment was made at the original hearing that the new sign was
to be substantially the same; however, a sign displaying two sides of advertising does not appear to
be substantially the same as a sign displaying one side of advertising. Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak,
Kottwitz, Troxell, and Ohlson. Nays: Manvel and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, that the Zoning Board
of Appeals did fail to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of Land Use Code Section
2.10.2(H), due to the fact that this particular sign relocation is detrimental to the public good.
Councilmember Horak stated this sign relocation is not good for the public as the City’s policy is
to have fewer, and less prominent, billboards.
Councilmember Troxell stated the City’s sign code was ignored by the Zoning Board of Appeals
in making its decision.
Councilmember Manvel stated that the fair market value for the sign to be dismantled should be
based on the existing revenue stream of the single-sided sign.
Mayor Weitkunat noted public goods other than just the cost of the sign need to be considered.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 114, 2012,
Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric
Rates, Fees and Charges, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
157
November 6, 2012
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2013 electric rate increases which average 4.33% are proposed to vary by customer class from
3.35% to 5.33%. The proposed changes will impact individual electric customers more or less than
the customer class averages and will vary by season. This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading
on October 16, 2012, by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Kottwitz).”
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, briefly discussed the proposed rate
changes.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, requested information regarding the new substation rate
class. He supported time of use rates with Smart Meter usage.
Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, asked about the difference between commercial and residential class
rates.
Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated a contract customer is now moving
to a standard rate as a result of the contract expiration. Due to the configuration with which the
customer is served, the substation rate was developed. He noted commercial rates are not
subsidizing residential rates, nor are residential rates subsidizing commercial rates. Each service
class pays for its own cost.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the AMI structure supports tiered rates. Catanach replied the
newly installed meters will provide data allowing billing on a time of use rate. He stated staff plans
to bring back the issue before Council next year. The AMI infrastructure is not needed to bill on
a tiered rate basis.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 114, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak noted 83% of the rate increase is directly due to the wholesale increase from
Platte River Power Authority. Of that, the majority of the increase is from fuel expense and the
reduction in surplus revenues.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-104
Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation
No. 2012-2 of the Ethics Review Board, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
158
November 6, 2012
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On October 22, 2012, and October 30, 2012, the
Ethics Review Board met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by
Mayor Weitkunat. The question submitted by the Mayor is whether, in the Board’s opinion, she
would have a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of either the City Council
or the Urban Renewal Authority regarding the possible redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. The
Mayor has presented the question because of the proximity of her residence to the redevelopment
site. As required by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion and recommendations to the full
Council for its consideration. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the
Council agrees with the Board’s opinion and recommendations.”
Mayor Weitkunat recused herself from the discussion of the item.
City Attorney Roy reviewed the role of the Ethics Review Board. He stated the Board came to the
conclusion that the Mayor does have a conflict of interest with regard to the possible mall
redevelopment, due to the proximity of her residence to the site. However, the Board came to the
conclusion that the Mayor does not, at the present time, have a conflict of interest in her role as the
Chair of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) as its current rules regarding conflicts of interest are
different. Additionally, the Board recommended that the Council consider modifying the City Code,
which presently exempts the Urban Renewal Authority from the City Charter’s conflict of interest
rules, and make the rules the same for the URA Board and Council.
Councilmember Manvel stated, as a member of the Ethics Review Board, it did appear the Mayor’s
property value would increase as a result of the mall redevelopment.
Councilmember Poppaw, as a member of the Ethics Review Board, agreed with Councilmember
Manvel’s assessment. It did appear the benefit to Mayor Weitkunat’s property value would be
greater than that of the general public.
Councilmember Troxell noted there is a possibility that the Mayor’s neighborhood could be
negatively impacted due to the redevelopment.
Councilmember Manvel stated real estate professionals were consulted and did indicate an increase
in property values.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated, as a member of the Ethics Review Board, she disagreed that there
was potentially a substantial financial impact, particularly given the property location being across
Swallow Road.
Councilmember Horak stated the real estate professional’s report does not appear to be as clear as
the conclusion made by the Board. Councilmember Poppaw replied the process needed to move
quickly and it would have been extraordinarily expensive to have an actual appraisal done. The
Board came to the decision that a reasonable person may conclude that the Mayor’s property value
may increase.
159
November 6, 2012
Councilmember Troxell asked if the Board could have come to the conclusion that there was not
enough information, thereby allowing the Mayor to make her own decision regarding the recusal.
City Attorney Roy replied there is no requirement that the Board render a definitive opinion.
Ultimately, under the Charter and the Code, it remains the responsibility of the individual
Councilmember to decide whether or not to declare a conflict of interest. The purpose of getting
an advisory opinion is to assist the Mayor in that decision.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2012-104.
Councilmember Manvel noted the URA rules are different than those of the City and only require
recusal should a member have a financial interest in the URA project itself. He encouraged the
Mayor to follow the rules of the City with regard to her recusal from the URA aspects of the issue.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the URA rules should be in line with those of the City.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion but suggested the conflict of interest
rules may need to be clarified in the future.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz
and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak suggested billboard signs be treated the same as all other properties with
regard to public projects.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to
Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., so that the Council may consider any additional business
that may come before the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
160